approximately $10 million for which some level of contribution will be required. More controversial, of course, is whether we should address the North Course’s failing infrastructure and design flaws and whether there are alternatives to a full-blown make-over that would involve less expense. For several years, we have worked hard to get solid, reliable answers to those questions and several others. We have learned a great deal and we share in these pages what we have learned. The facts have led us to conclude that there are only two sensible choices: a renovation with a reduced scope or an irrigation-only project. The full-scope cost of Andrew Green’s sixth design (excluding irrigation) would total $14,640,133.88. Your Executive Committee firmly believes that the design includes features that we should not undertake at this point. We asked him to eliminate components that can reasonably be postponed, while still allowing us to achieve our long-stated goals. The scaled- down renovation would eliminate the forced carries that make the North Course less accessible and enjoyable for our newer golfers and those who do not hit the ball as far as others. It would correct all our problematic greens that currently afford extremely limited choice in hole locations (and all the issues attendant to that problem). It would replace our bunkers that are sorely in need of replacement for a number of reasons. It would solve our drainage problems; create cost savings in both chemical application and general grounds activities; expand the number of tee boxes, thereby providing a top golf experience for every player; and at long last replace the 18th hole with a far better design. It would defer changes to the practice range and practice green that would impact the South Course. We anticipate that the cost of this project would total $10,722,141.77, exclusive of irrigation. Note that this figure closely coincides with the Board’s cost expectations in 2016. In short, this capital expenditure does not come as a surprise. Together with the irrigation system, the total cost would approximate $22 million. Having reduced the renovation cost by over 25%, we proceeded to explore a number of other alternatives to the scope of work. None of them resulted in an attractive outcome with meaningful cost reductions. We considered alternatives too numerous to detail here, including every idea proposed by the membership and many others. We considered several phased approaches, but each increased the cost and prolonged the inconvenience of years of construction. We considered budgeted approaches which only served to weaken the final product. Many other ideas were investigated and found to be either too expensive, too intrusive or unworthy of their associated expense.
One of the alternatives in which we were most interested involved not a re-design of the course, but rather only the replacement of the greens, bunkers and cart paths. That is, we obtained cost information for addressing only those items which some believe to be the most critical and which cannot be reasonably tolerated for another 40 years. Unfortunately, we learned that a project of that limited scope would cost 94% of the more comprehensive, but still scaled back renovation. The fact that became amply clear is that greens, bunkers and cart paths are by far the most expensive components of any renovation. Therefore, for a cost savings of only 6%, we would still need to endure the 18th hole, the forced carries, etc., etc., etc. for generations. The only financially sensible alternative to a renovation, therefore, is to conduct none of the renovation work and simply replace the irrigation system. If we were to choose that path, the choice to pay the penalty of millions of extra dollars to address the North Course’s infrastructure would be passed down the line to future leadership. In this package of information, you will find the manner in which the Club would pay for a renovation and what it would mean for individual households. We have strived to find ways to make this event as manageable for the membership as possible. Our oldest members will be relieved of responsibility, if they so choose. Contributions will be payable over time for those who choose to do so. Our goal has been to achieve what has long been aspired to though unfunded, while easing the burden on membership as much as possible. Our hope is that members will recognize the value that this significant investment will generate for decades to come. The contribution for a typical household for a project that fully addresses the North Course and the irrigation system would be less than $20,000. In the context of expenditures that we all need to make as homeowners, parents, automobile owners, etc., that one-time investment in the country club that we all own does not strike us as unreasonable, nor should it trigger substantial attrition. Some have asserted that our general manager has driven this process and it is his desires that are being pursued in this endeavor. That is entirely untrue and counterproductive. This infrastructure project is a creature of our circumstances and our Board, not our general manager or anyone else.
31
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software