Executive Courses going forward

[BrianL99]

I spent a couple of hours with Mitch Leininger, the Director of Executive Golf for the District, this past Wednesday.

I initiated contact with the PWAC, regarding the recent problems with the Exec Courses. They referred my letter to Mr. Brown the Assistant Director, who responded immediately, substantively and patiently. He also suggested I contact Mitch and arrange to visit some of the District’s current Exec Golf course projects, which I did. I spent a couple of hours with Mitch, yesterday.

First off, I have to commend the District for not only their quick response and consideration, but of all the governmental and quasi-governmental units I’ve dealt with through the years, not one has been any more forthcoming with information or access to staff and documents. While we might not always agree with what the District does, their commitment to transparency and access, is to be commended.

As to the golf.

I think the District has gotten the message, that residents and golfers are not happy with the condition of the courses this year and have resolved to do a better job going forward.

I didn’t ask why the situation was allowed to deteriorate to what we saw this year, but I can speculate that the District got caught behind the curve. I think a less than aggressive maintenance program over the past years, combined with adverse weather conditions this Spring, brought things to a head. It’s fairly easy to grow grass when conditions are optimal, it’s more of a challenge when the weather turns against us.

I have a attended a couple of PWAC meetings, where golf was a subject and the District has said they need to do a better job with their contracts, management of the contracts, as well as course maintenance. Keep in mind, “contracting” and “managing” golf courses, are two different tasks. While they sometimes overlap, we can’t always expect a Golf Course Superintendent to be an expert in contracting, nor a contracting expert to be a golf maintenance whiz. I think the District is going to re-visit how their contracts are structured and managed.

I visited a couple of courses, in the process of being renovated. I think the inclusion of the USGA in this process, is a huge positive step. From what Mitch told me, they’ll be consulted as necessary, as renovations move forward and they’ll be providing analysis of some of the construction materials. The District also moved forward with a “direct purchase process”, for golf related materials (fertilizers, fungicides, etc.). Buying directly should save money, but more importantly, standardize the products that are being use on the golf courses.

Going forward, I think we’ll see an improvement in conditions and hopefully, a long-range plan that insures they don’t get caught behind the curve again.

Also, the District is planning a "course condition" guide, that's going to be published (or posted), so anyone looking to play, will be able to have some insight into current conditions at a specific course (this was discussed at the PWAC meeting).

& yes, I made a number of suggestions that I think might improve conditions and their contracting process, as well as increase Customer (resident) Satisfaction.

We’ll see what next year brings.

[Altavia]

Thanks for the update and your efforts Brian!

[Stu from NYC]

Thanks for the info but the problem did not start this spring.

Some people should be held accountable.

[BrianL99]

Thanks for the update and your efforts Brian!

The value of complaining on social media has run its course, in my opinion. Besides, I think it's disingenuous to just complain and not offer suggestions or help or whatever. So I went to the source.



Thanks for the info but the problem did not start this spring.

Some people should be held accountable.

That was the refrain I heard from a couple of District Reps at the PWAC. I think the District got the message, but I think it's a much bigger problem than holding one person responsible and firing that person.

It would be much too easy to say, Mitch Leininger has been the Director of Executive Golf for the last 4-5 years, so let's blame him and fire him. Some PWAC members appear to have been suggesting that. I don't think it's that simple. Yes, "the buck stops at his desk", but one man can't manage 40+ Executive Golf Courses, without a support structure, budget and team to help him. I think (& this is just my speculation, I wasn't told this) the majority of Mitch's "team", are the Contractors TV uses ... not his own staff. He's obviously got the PGA Professionals on staff, but they already have their hands full with the day to day operations they're responsible for. Just my opinion, but I don't Mitch is the problem, it's larger than one person.

I think the District has some systemic issues that need to be dealt with. TV and the District's responsibility has grown exponentially over the last 15 years and I'm not sure their infrastructure has kept up with that growth. When I say "infrastructure", I don't just mean people, I mean their way of doing business and contracting. What was a simple and reasonable process 10 years ago, may not be as effective these days.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the District is under-staffed and from what I've seen, the various district commissioners and the advisory boards, create more work than they produce. I'm sure there are exceptions, but many of the Commissioners come to meetings unprepared and are more worried about what time the pickleball courts will open and other minutia, rather than the millions of dollars they are tasked with managing.

[Stu from NYC]

The value of complaining on social media has run its course, in my opinion. Besides, I think it's disingenuous to just complain and not offer suggestions or help or whatever. So I went to the source.





That was the refrain I heard from a couple of District Reps at the PWAC. I think the District got the message, but I think it's a much bigger problem than holding one person responsible and firing that person.

It would be much too easy to say, Mitch Leininger has been the Director of Executive Golf for the last 4-5 years, so let's blame him and fire him. Some PWAC members appear to have been suggesting that. I don't think it's that simple. Yes, "the buck stops at his desk", but one man can't manage 40+ Executive Golf Courses, without a support structure, budget and team to help him. I think (& this is just my speculation, I wasn't told this) the majority of Mitch's "team", are the Contractors TV uses ... not his own staff. He's obviously got the PGA Professionals on staff, but they already have their hands full with the day to day operations they're responsible for. Just my opinion, but I don't Mitch is the problem, it's larger than one person.

I think the District has some systemic issues that need to be dealt with. TV and the District's responsibility has grown exponentially over the last 15 years and I'm not sure their infrastructure has kept up with that growth. When I say "infrastructure", I don't just mean people, I mean their way of doing business and contracting. What was a simple and reasonable process 10 years ago, may not be as effective these days.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the District is under-staffed and from what I've seen, the various district commissioners and the advisory boards, create more work than they produce. I'm sure there are exceptions, but many of the Commissioners come to meetings unprepared and are more worried about what time the pickleball courts will open and other minutia, rather than the millions of dollars they are tasked with managing.

Speaking to friends who play the championship courses regularly the prevailing opinion is the people in charge of maintaining the courses should have done more to either replace contractors maintaining the courses or publicized the problems earlier.

Never should have gotten this bad.

[BrianL99]

Speaking to friends who play the championship courses regularly the prevailing opinion is the people in charge of maintaining the courses should have done more to either replace contractors maintaining the courses or publicized the problems earlier.

Never should have gotten this bad.

I agree 100%.

That said, the Championship Courses are a horse of another color. I'd love Rickey Craig (VP of Golf/Tennis) to call me and ask me to tour some of the courses with him and make suggestions.

I've been waiting for Jessica Biel to call me for a few years now. Rickey will probably call after Jessica does.

[RedWingNut]

The buck should stop with the man in charge. When it comes to his salary I’m sure he points to the fact that he is in charge of everything golf related and with that amount of responsibility he should be compensated for it. Things have been complacent too long around here, new faces, new ideas are needed. Those currently in charge laugh all the way to the bank every time they cash their checks,

[Janie123]

I spent a couple of hours with Mitch Leininger, the Director of Executive Golf for the District, this past Wednesday.

I initiated contact with the PWAC, regarding the recent problems with the Exec Courses. They referred my letter to Mr. Brown the Assistant Director, who responded immediately, substantively and patiently. He also suggested I contact Mitch and arrange to visit some of the District’s current Exec Golf course projects, which I did. I spent a couple of hours with Mitch, yesterday.

First off, I have to commend the District for not only their quick response and consideration, but of all the governmental and quasi-governmental units I’ve dealt with through the years, not one has been any more forthcoming with information or access to staff and documents. While we might not always agree with what the District does, their commitment to transparency and access, is to be commended.

As to the golf.

I think the District has gotten the message, that residents and golfers are not happy with the condition of the courses this year and have resolved to do a better job going forward.

I didn’t ask why the situation was allowed to deteriorate to what we saw this year, but I can speculate that the District got caught behind the curve. I think a less than aggressive maintenance program over the past years, combined with adverse weather conditions this Spring, brought things to a head. It’s fairly easy to grow grass when conditions are optimal, it’s more of a challenge when the weather turns against us.

I have a attended a couple of PWAC meetings, where golf was a subject and the District has said they need to do a better job with their contracts, management of the contracts, as well as course maintenance. Keep in mind, “contracting” and “managing” golf courses, are two different tasks. While they sometimes overlap, we can’t always expect a Golf Course Superintendent to be an expert in contracting, nor a contracting expert to be a golf maintenance whiz. I think the District is going to re-visit how their contracts are structured and managed.

I visited a couple of courses, in the process of being renovated. I think the inclusion of the USGA in this process, is a huge positive step. From what Mitch told me, they’ll be consulted as necessary, as renovations move forward and they’ll be providing analysis of some of the construction materials. The District also moved forward with a “direct purchase process”, for golf related materials (fertilizers, fungicides, etc.). Buying directly should save money, but more importantly, standardize the products that are being use on the golf courses.

Going forward, I think we’ll see an improvement in conditions and hopefully, a long-range plan that insures they don’t get caught behind the curve again.

Also, the District is planning a "course condition" guide, that's going to be published (or posted), so anyone looking to play, will be able to have some insight into current conditions at a specific course (this was discussed at the PWAC meeting).

& yes, I made a number of suggestions that I think might improve conditions and their contracting process, as well as increase Customer (resident) Satisfaction.

We’ll see what next year brings.
Thanks for the update Brian. I live near Savannah Center and play the 4 northern courses along with Diablo/Santiago. We hear the amount of play is a major factor but those 4 courses get probably 95% the play the Roosevelt/Truman/Bogart/Bacall type courses get. We have also heard the 4 north courses are managed by the Lopez crew… maybe just a rumor but they have never been in anywhere near as bad conditions as the middle courses that had to be closes and are usually in the same conditions as the Lopez course. Can you confirm?

I used to work a golf course when I was young and I see bizarre practices here. For example, Escambia. We played it one weekend, the greens were grown to probably 1/4” one weekend. Maybe wanting them to get a good growing in as the weather gets warm. then, bang they were cut to normal playing conditions all at one time, lots of scalping, tearing, etc. We never would cut more than a 1/16 off the top when coming out of winter conditions.

Finally, how do you relate to Mitch and his crew where he took the time with you? I think it’s great that he did, I think the scorecard is great addition and hope as you said grows to a weekly update on all courses and their status

thanks again…

[BrianL99]

Things have been complacent too long around here, new faces, new ideas are needed.

I'm not sure the "faces" matter, but I offered a number of "new ideas" I think would change things for the better and I'm sure others also have some ideas.

One idea I tried to push, was the idea of using CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) as a standard and incentive.

If you bring you car in for service, you get a survey the next day. If you stay at a hotel, you get asked for a review. If you use Customer Support for anything, you get a survey. Every other company in the world, seems intent on knowing what their "customers" think, why shouldn't TV operate the same way?

& why shouldn't those who do an exceptional job, be rewarded or incentivized?

[coleprice]

I spent a couple of hours with Mitch Leininger, the Director of Executive Golf for the District, this past Wednesday.

I initiated contact with the PWAC, regarding the recent problems with the Exec Courses. They referred my letter to Mr. Brown the Assistant Director, who responded immediately, substantively and patiently. He also suggested I contact Mitch and arrange to visit some of the District’s current Exec Golf course projects, which I did. I spent a couple of hours with Mitch, yesterday.

First off, I have to commend the District for not only their quick response and consideration, but of all the governmental and quasi-governmental units I’ve dealt with through the years, not one has been any more forthcoming with information or access to staff and documents. While we might not always agree with what the District does, their commitment to transparency and access, is to be commended.

As to the golf.

I think the District has gotten the message, that residents and golfers are not happy with the condition of the courses this year and have resolved to do a better job going forward.

I didn’t ask why the situation was allowed to deteriorate to what we saw this year, but I can speculate that the District got caught behind the curve. I think a less than aggressive maintenance program over the past years, combined with adverse weather conditions this Spring, brought things to a head. It’s fairly easy to grow grass when conditions are optimal, it’s more of a challenge when the weather turns against us.

I have a attended a couple of PWAC meetings, where golf was a subject and the District has said they need to do a better job with their contracts, management of the contracts, as well as course maintenance. Keep in mind, “contracting” and “managing” golf courses, are two different tasks. While they sometimes overlap, we can’t always expect a Golf Course Superintendent to be an expert in contracting, nor a contracting expert to be a golf maintenance whiz. I think the District is going to re-visit how their contracts are structured and managed.

I visited a couple of courses, in the process of being renovated. I think the inclusion of the USGA in this process, is a huge positive step. From what Mitch told me, they’ll be consulted as necessary, as renovations move forward and they’ll be providing analysis of some of the construction materials. The District also moved forward with a “direct purchase process”, for golf related materials (fertilizers, fungicides, etc.). Buying directly should save money, but more importantly, standardize the products that are being use on the golf courses.

Going forward, I think we’ll see an improvement in conditions and hopefully, a long-range plan that insures they don’t get caught behind the curve again.

Also, the District is planning a "course condition" guide, that's going to be published (or posted), so anyone looking to play, will be able to have some insight into current conditions at a specific course (this was discussed at the PWAC meeting).

& yes, I made a number of suggestions that I think might improve conditions and their contracting process, as well as increase Customer (resident) Satisfaction.

We’ll see what next year brings.

Since you didn't ask why the Executive Golf Courses were allowed to deteriorate, which would have provided FACTS, then the rest of your "article" is OPINION based upon your limited observations. By not asking this obvious question, it appears that your article was intended to placate golfers with rhetoric rather than identify the problem's root cause so that it can be properly resolved.

[BrianL99]

Since you didn't ask why the Executive Golf Courses were allowed to deteriorate, which would have provided FACTS, then the rest of your "article" is OPINION based upon your limited observations. By not asking this obvious question, it appears that your article was intended to placate golfers with rhetoric rather than identify the problem's root cause so that it can be properly resolved.

It wasn't an "article", it was simply a post about my experience with the District's golf course manager and I did (& have on this forum), identified what I think the problems are. But you're right, they're only my opinion ... based on 30+ years in and around the golf business.

I can tell you exactly why the courses were in the condition they were in ... lack of proper maintenance.

The District did not have an overall "Agronomy Plan" for the courses and has been using "task based" contracts to mow & fertilize. No where in the process is there a standard that says, "the goal is to provide quality playing conditions, regardless of weather or volume of play".

We've been hiring landscapes to cut grass and put down fertilizer, like we've been maintaining a soccer field. Maintaining golf courses is an entirely different process and hasn't been done in the past.

[BrianL99]

... We have also heard the 4 north courses are managed by the Lopez crew… .... Can you confirm?

.... We never would cut more than a 1/16 off the top when coming out of winter conditions.

Finally, how do you relate to Mitch and his crew where he took the time with you? I think it’s great that he did, I think the scorecard is great addition and hope as you said grows to a weekly update on all courses and their status

thanks again…

There are 3 or 4 "crews" (Contractors) that provide maintenance services to the golf courses. I have heard that the "Lopez crew" has been moved down south to work on the new Championship courses. I believe that same crew took care of Glenview & TDS (& their associated Exec Courses). From what I've been told (not by Mitch), all the contractors previously working in the north, have been moved south. My conversations with Mitch were more theory, planning, contracting on a conceptual and long-range basis. There wasn't any "he said, she said, they did", finger pointing.

I don't know Mitch at all. I've sent a couple of letters to the PWAC, with specific suggestions for improvement and they ended up on Bruce Brown's desk and he suggested I spend some time with Mitch, which I did.

[Marathon Man]

Since you didn't ask why the Executive Golf Courses were allowed to deteriorate, which would have provided FACTS, then the rest of your "article" is OPINION based upon your limited observations. By not asking this obvious question, it appears that your article was intended to placate golfers with rhetoric rather than identify the problem's root cause so that it can be properly resolved.

WOW!!!!!! What have you done to help the community?

[mntlblok]

Thanks for the update Brian. I live near Savannah Center and play the 4 northern courses along with Diablo/Santiago. We hear the amount of play is a major factor but those 4 courses get probably 95% the play the Roosevelt/Truman/Bogart/Bacall type courses get. We have also heard the 4 north courses are managed by the Lopez crew… maybe just a rumor but they have never been in anywhere near as bad conditions as the middle courses that had to be closes and are usually in the same conditions as the Lopez course. Can you confirm?

I used to work a golf course when I was young and I see bizarre practices here. For example, Escambia. We played it one weekend, the greens were grown to probably 1/4” one weekend. Maybe wanting them to get a good growing in as the weather gets warm. then, bang they were cut to normal playing conditions all at one time, lots of scalping, tearing, etc. We never would cut more than a 1/16 off the top when coming out of winter conditions.

Finally, how do you relate to Mitch and his crew where he took the time with you? I think it’s great that he did, I think the scorecard is great addition and hope as you said grows to a weekly update on all courses and their status

thanks again…

I also thank Brian for his efforts and for sharing his findings.

Escambia happens to be where we've played the majority of our recent rounds. Had forgotten about the day when the grass on the greens there was so long and that the putts were so slow. They were *very* lush and pretty that way. :-) But, I *did* notice the recent scalping there. With your work history you'd know more about it than I, but my sense was that it was more of a "settings" problems with the "reels" on the mower - as if it (or part of a set of reels) weren't "level" - based on the intermittent scalping pattern. I would've expected the whole surface of the greens to have been scalped, rather than the patchy, angled, "spots" of damage if it were all just mown too short, too quickly.

Anyway, it reminded me of how I've wondered whether the curve behind which maintenance got with the horrible greens this winter might've been as simple as scalping areas (from poor settings?) just as the grass was going dormant. Certain slopes lend themselves more to scalpage, and the patterns could conceivably have been explained by such. I ran that speculation by the USGA inspector who met recently with Mitch (and who shared his email address with us). I haven't yet received a response to my longish inquiry.

Like Brian, I did receive a response from Howard Brown from the district when I emailed him about the conditions back early on. Shared his response here on TOTV. Still haven't heard whether the testing for fungus yielded any results. If Brian isn't sharing all that he learned, I suspect that he probably has pretty good reasons. He strikes me as being particularly knowledgeable on the subject, right eloquent, and as one operating with a sharing and helpful "intention". I again thank him.

[mpcolonel]

Not picking everybody knows he meant last spring thru the year

[Dilligas]

There are 3 or 4 "crews" (Contractors) that provide maintenance services to the golf courses. I have heard that the "Lopez crew" has been moved down south to work on the new Championship courses. I believe that same crew took care of Glenview & TDS (& their associated Exec Courses). From what I've been told (not by Mitch), all the contractors previously working in the north, have been moved south. My conversations with Mitch were more theory, planning, contracting on a conceptual and long-range basis. There wasn't any "he said, she said, they did", finger pointing.

I don't know Mitch at all. I've sent a couple of letters to the PWAC, with specific suggestions for improvement and they ended up on Bruce Brown's desk and he suggested I spend some time with Mitch, which I did.
Brian, thanks for this and your incentive. Was it ever discussed why TV doesn’t maintain it’s own maintenance company and crews with over 700 holes and growing, the consistency of management and direction should be better under one company than 3, 4, or 5 separate contract companies.

[zuidemab]

I'm not sure the "faces" matter, but I offered a number of "new ideas" I think would change things for the better and I'm sure others also have some ideas.

One idea I tried to push, was the idea of using CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index) as a standard and incentive.

If you bring you car in for service, you get a survey the next day. If you stay at a hotel, you get asked for a review. If you use Customer Support for anything, you get a survey. Every other company in the world, seems intent on knowing what their "customers" think, why shouldn't TV operate the same way?

& why shouldn't those who do an exceptional job, be rewarded or incentivized?

I totally agree Brian. World class organizations all use customer input and continuous improvement systems. Thanks for objective analysis and critical thinking.

[ThirdOfFive]

Many thanks for the post and the effort(s) being made. This is a significant step forward.

I don't think pointing fingers at this stage has any real value. Much more important is to A) recognize the problem (probably many more than one problem), B) define what needs to be done to get things going in the right direction and subsequently in an ongoing manner; and C) get the channels of communication and the mechanisms in place to do things right on an ongoing basis. Fixing is important. But even more important than fixing is to get the proper MAINTENANCE in place so that fixing is no longer needed, at least not to the point where so many courses need so much.

One thing that might be useful (I haven't seen or heard any mention of this so far) is to form a volunteer group of interested golfers; people who play the execs regularly, to meet with the powers-that-be on a regular (monthly?) basis and provide input regarding the various courses, what isn't being done, what could be done, etc. etc. It is a given that the head honcho is going to have several layers between him or her, and the people who do the maintenance on the courses. Such input could be a valuable addition to keeping the courses at their best.

[kcrazorbackfan]

I spent a couple of hours with Mitch Leininger, the Director of Executive Golf for the District, this past Wednesday.

I initiated contact with the PWAC, regarding the recent problems with the Exec Courses. They referred my letter to Mr. Brown the Assistant Director, who responded immediately, substantively and patiently. He also suggested I contact Mitch and arrange to visit some of the District’s current Exec Golf course projects, which I did. I spent a couple of hours with Mitch, yesterday.

First off, I have to commend the District for not only their quick response and consideration, but of all the governmental and quasi-governmental units I’ve dealt with through the years, not one has been any more forthcoming with information or access to staff and documents. While we might not always agree with what the District does, their commitment to transparency and access, is to be commended.

As to the golf.

I think the District has gotten the message, that residents and golfers are not happy with the condition of the courses this year and have resolved to do a better job going forward.

I didn’t ask why the situation was allowed to deteriorate to what we saw this year, but I can speculate that the District got caught behind the curve. I think a less than aggressive maintenance program over the past years, combined with adverse weather conditions this Spring, brought things to a head. It’s fairly easy to grow grass when conditions are optimal, it’s more of a challenge when the weather turns against us.

I have a attended a couple of PWAC meetings, where golf was a subject and the District has said they need to do a better job with their contracts, management of the contracts, as well as course maintenance. Keep in mind, “contracting” and “managing” golf courses, are two different tasks. While they sometimes overlap, we can’t always expect a Golf Course Superintendent to be an expert in contracting, nor a contracting expert to be a golf maintenance whiz. I think the District is going to re-visit how their contracts are structured and managed.

I visited a couple of courses, in the process of being renovated. I think the inclusion of the USGA in this process, is a huge positive step. From what Mitch told me, they’ll be consulted as necessary, as renovations move forward and they’ll be providing analysis of some of the construction materials. The District also moved forward with a “direct purchase process”, for golf related materials (fertilizers, fungicides, etc.). Buying directly should save money, but more importantly, standardize the products that are being use on the golf courses.

Going forward, I think we’ll see an improvement in conditions and hopefully, a long-range plan that insures they don’t get caught behind the curve again.

Also, the District is planning a "course condition" guide, that's going to be published (or posted), so anyone looking to play, will be able to have some insight into current conditions at a specific course (this was discussed at the PWAC meeting).

& yes, I made a number of suggestions that I think might improve conditions and their contracting process, as well as increase Customer (resident) Satisfaction.

We’ll see what next year brings.

👏👏👏👏👏👏 Thank you for this.

[SHIBUMI]

Many thanks for the effort to positively impact the golf course condition situation. Golf Courses as you know are like snowflakes and golf swings..... they are all different. And need to be maintained that way. Whats good for one is rarely good for all. Treating them all the same will eventually erode some conditions. The PGA Pro's have nothing to do with conditions. When asked they will just tell you some suck. Thats not their purpose. And obviously when they say they suck nothing gets done. So it is a system/infrastructure issue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you a courses conditions are bad. The system is not promoting taking care of the problem. Something is causing a failure to react, and that is the cure. Change that something and it usually lies within the organizational set-up. Nobody ignores it on purpose.

As I have said in the past, you need more superintendents as your eyes on the ground. When a golfer reaches the golf course they have left most of their brain back at home. They should not be the reviewers of conditions as you will get too many different opinions coming from a childs point of view.

The golf review should come from an agronomy person. That is the first big step.
Just hire 1 qualified superintendent to do nothing but constantly review every golf course and determine playing conditions. His or her brain will be with them.
They will tell you if areas are too wet, too dry, greens bad, bunkers terrible, water system inefficient, poorly cut, etc etc........from an agronomy viewpoint.

That would actually be a pretty good job for someone and the leader whoever that is,
will get first hand info on a constant basis. And those reviews, are what becomes public information, not golfers bitches. This will hi-light if it's a fault with the system or the leader. And lead to change.

One position doesn't seem like a big deal financially, as it will benefit tremendously.
It's time to bring in a Gordon Ramsey. With so many courses, and there are a lot, a daunting task, bring in your own USGA person on a daily basis and not quarterly.

This one job has the ability to constantly monitor conditions before they get out of control. And to fix a system that needs to react sooner than later.

Like the golf swing.......it's just that simple..........:bowdown:



The value of complaining on social media has run its course, in my opinion. Besides, I think it's disingenuous to just complain and not offer suggestions or help or whatever. So I went to the source.





That was the refrain I heard from a couple of District Reps at the PWAC. I think the District got the message, but I think it's a much bigger problem than holding one person responsible and firing that person.

It would be much too easy to say, Mitch Leininger has been the Director of Executive Golf for the last 4-5 years, so let's blame him and fire him. Some PWAC members appear to have been suggesting that. I don't think it's that simple. Yes, "the buck stops at his desk", but one man can't manage 40+ Executive Golf Courses, without a support structure, budget and team to help him. I think (& this is just my speculation, I wasn't told this) the majority of Mitch's "team", are the Contractors TV uses ... not his own staff. He's obviously got the PGA Professionals on staff, but they already have their hands full with the day to day operations they're responsible for. Just my opinion, but I don't Mitch is the problem, it's larger than one person.

I think the District has some systemic issues that need to be dealt with. TV and the District's responsibility has grown exponentially over the last 15 years and I'm not sure their infrastructure has kept up with that growth. When I say "infrastructure", I don't just mean people, I mean their way of doing business and contracting. What was a simple and reasonable process 10 years ago, may not be as effective these days.

Just a personal opinion, but I think the District is under-staffed and from what I've seen, the various district commissioners and the advisory boards, create more work than they produce. I'm sure there are exceptions, but many of the Commissioners come to meetings unprepared and are more worried about what time the pickleball courts will open and other minutia, rather than the millions of dollars they are tasked with managing.

[NJRICHARD]

IF YOU CAN CLEARLY WRITE DOWN THE PROBLEM, THEN THE MATTER IS HALF SOLVED.
I played at a 9-hole course in NJ that was nicknamed the cow pasture. THEN, they hired a person WHO KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING, and in 2 seasons turned the course conditions around so they were EXCELLENT. ONE person can do the same here. FIND & HIRE THEM!

[BrianL99]

Thank you for the compliments, I'm just trying to help and be a positive influence, rather than a complainer. As I said a few post ago, I think the District got the message and complaining on social media has run its course. The people in control, know folks are unhappy. Now it's an issue of coming up with a plan, going forward.

I made a number of specific suggestions, but I can condense them into a couple of paragraphs.

I think we need what's known as an IGMCP (Integrated Golf Course Management Plan). I have one we created from scratch for a project, in cooperation with Rees Jones, 20 years ago. It costs us about $300,000, back when money was worth something. They've become reasonably prolific these days, so there's no need to create one from scratch any more. Every major golf management company has one or something similar.

A IGCMP lays out all the construction, maintenance and operational requirements of a SPECIFIC golf course, given its localized needs and micro-climate. An IGCMP is created in consultation with an architect, agronomist, superintendent, engineers, landscape/arborists, golf professionals, environmental scientists, etc.. It specifies how a course is to be maintained, what products are to be used under what circumstances and identifies goals (the level of playing conditions desired). It also contains objective criteria to be used to evaluate the current "health" of a golf course and a long range plan to insure sustainability. It's a living document, that needs to be constantly updated.

In the case of TV, one Master IGCMP, would be a good start. Each individual golf course would have it's own addendum, that applies specifically to that course, based on its construction, soils, micro-climate and history. We have a 20+ year history with most of these courses. We should know if the "green on the 4th hole of a specific golf course", always has a problem in July, because of lack of air flow (or whatever it might be).

We need to divvy up responsibility. As Rich mentioned, one man can't be at 40+ golf courses every day. We need to know what's going on at every golf course, every week ... and adjust maintenance in response to the "on the ground reality".

We need to hold contractor's responsible, for producing the playing conditions that we expect and pay for.

Managing the maintenance of a golf course is mostly subjective, not objective. In other words, you can apply all the fertilizer you want and aerate every week, but if it doesn't produce quality playing conditions, you've wasted your money. We should be paying for "results", not "tasks".

We should constantly monitor "customer satisfaction" I've suggested we use the Online Tee System to do that, by adding a CSI component when you book your next tee time.

I think we need to reward contractors who do a particularly good job and replace the contractors who don't.

We also have to consider the #1 concern of golf courses around the world. Intensive golf cart use and players' lack of care and consideration for the golfers that come behind them.

Only my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[BrianL99]

Brian, thanks for this and your incentive. Was it ever discussed why TV doesn’t maintain it’s own maintenance company and crews with over 700 holes and growing, the consistency of management and direction should be better under one company than 3, 4, or 5 separate contract companies.

I sent a letter to the PWAC 2 months ago, suggesting the District get into the business of maintaining golf courses, much as a city or town would have a "DPW Department". That would be a huge undertaking, but based on comments at the last PWAC meeting, it's being considered and it's possible that a pilot project might be initiated to test the premise. At least 2 of the members of the PWAC brought it up last week.

[jarodrig]

Brian,

Thanks for your report .

Here is one suggestion that you can pass along to your contact . If adopted, this suggestion will yield a 75 % improvement within two weeks !

The suggestion ? STOP MOWING THE CR@P out of the courses where there is NO GRASS to be mowed !! What you see now are the mowers continuing to needlessly mow the already scalped turf. End result is that doing so continues to perpetuate the hardpan that is never given a chance to recover .

This is really a no brainer but I assume that these crews are under contract to mow x number of times a (week/month) ?

On a separate note , does anyone know why the executive courses south of 44 were not include in the “report card” that was recently published ??

[BrianL99]

This is really a no brainer but I assume that these crews are under contract to mow x number of times a (week/month) ?

On a separate note , does anyone know why the executive courses south of 44 were not include in the “report card” that was recently published ??

You already know the answer to the "mowing question"!

Yes. Those courses are still owned by the Developer, so the District doesn't control them or manage them.

[Daddymac]

Here is a good question, Why are we paying to fix “The contractors” £uck up, To bring the courses back. Why are they not insured for this.
Just more hands in the cookie jar!!

[Marathon Man]

Here is a good question, Why are we paying to fix “The contractors” £uck up, To bring the courses back. Why are they not insured for this.
Just more hands in the cookie jar!!

Great question to ask at the next meeting where the right people can give you an answer.

[jarodrig]

You already know the answer to the "mowing question"!

Yes. Those courses are still owned by the Developer, so the District doesn't control them or manage them.

That makes sense …. No wonder why they are all in great shape !! :):):)

[BrianL99]

Here is a good question, Why are we paying to fix “The contractors” £uck up, To bring the courses back. Why are they not insured for this.
Just more hands in the cookie jar!!

Great question to ask at the next meeting where the right people can give you an answer.

I don't believe the contracts require the maintenance contractors to "maintain the course" (as we might construe "maintain" to mean). I believe most, if not all of the contracts are awarded more as a "landscaping contract" and simply require the maintenance contractor to mow, fertilize & aerate (& other functions) on a specific schedule and proceed as advised by the Director. I don't believe they had any real obligation to assess current conditions and proceed accordingly. I don't think the contracts hold the contractor accountable.

At the last PWAC meeting, at least one of the Commissioners mentioned that the contracts were more like "landscape contracts" (in fact, they are officially called "landscaping contracts").

In the real world of golf course maintenance, mowing, watering, fertilizing, aerating, rolling, punching, etc., isn't necessarily done on a fixed, weekly/monthly/yearly schedule. It is done "as conditions warrant".

[jnsbill]

IF YOU CAN CLEARLY WRITE DOWN THE PROBLEM, THEN THE MATTER IS HALF SOLVED.
I played at a 9-hole course in NJ that was nicknamed the cow pasture. THEN, they hired a person WHO KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING, and in 2 seasons turned the course conditions around so they were EXCELLENT. ONE person can do the same here. FIND & HIRE THEM!

what NJ course?

[jarodrig]

In the real world of golf course maintenance, mowing, watering, fertilizing, aerating, rolling, punching, etc., isn't necessarily done on a fixed, weekly/monthly/yearly schedule. It is done "as conditions warrant".

Hence the problem . They are mowing the sh@t on these courses when the conditions ARE NOT warranted!

Having that practice STOPPED will be a very quick way to almost immediately improve the condition of these courses .

For that to happen , supervision needs to take place . Obviously, there is nor has there been any <real> supervision or real accountability to guard against incompetency…..

[HORNET]

A couple of weeks ago I was playing Sandhill, there were 3 large tractors ( tractors) moving grass that was short ( very short ) and already brown! Why weren’t they doing something other than beating up on dried up grass.

[BrianL99]

A couple of weeks ago I was playing Sandhill, there were 3 large tractors ( tractors) moving grass that was short ( very short ) and already brown! Why weren’t they doing something other than beating up on dried up grass.

Contract calls for mowing the grass 3X per week, they mow 3X per week. Did you ever try to talk to one of the mower operators? We're not talking brain surgeons, here.

[Stu from NYC]

Contract calls for mowing the grass 3X per week, they mow 3X per week. Did you ever try to talk to one of the mower operators? We're not talking brain surgeons, here.

Shouldnt the folks who manage the upkeep of the courses tell their employees what they are supposed to do?

[Papa_lecki]

The golf review should come from an agronomy person. That is the first big step.
Just hire 1 qualified superintendent to do nothing but constantly review every golf course and determine playing conditions.

I personally think there should be 3/4/5 real agronomist, superintendents who oversee the course conditions. And even that number may not be enough.

[Dusty_Star]

Thank you Brian. Thanks for your time, effort, knowledge & sharing. It is much appreciated.

[Annie66]

I have read all of the responses through #35. There is a discussion about adding people to supervise and assess conditions but no discussion on the cost and how it would be paid. Since the developer does not own the courses north of SR44 where much of the angst is centered, it appears that we will have multiple groups involved in making decisions about what to do and how much to spend. It strikes me as an approach that is fraught with problems. If my comments above are correct, my question is how do you secure a long-term, organized and coordinated approach that adequately funds the plan year-in and year-out in order to obtain the desired results?

[Papa_lecki]

If my comments above are correct, my question is how do you secure a long-term, organized and coordinated approach that adequately funds the plan year-in and year-out in order to obtain the desired results?

Good comment, given the increase in the amenity fee is capped at CPI.

[jarodrig]

Shouldnt the folks who manage the upkeep of the courses tell their employees what they are supposed to do?

And there lies the problem . They are as incompetent as the ones riding the mowers ….

There is no accountability and their only answer is to name some or something else ! Does El Niño come to mind ???

[BrianL99]

Good comment, given the increase in the amenity fee is capped at CPI.

Quality maintenance is a zero sum game. The money that's spent on maintenance, saves money from the increased budget item to renovated golf courses on a 10-12 year cycle.

[JMintzer]

I agree 100%.

That said, the Championship Courses are a horse of another color. I'd love Rickey Craig (VP of Golf/Tennis) to call me and ask me to tour some of the courses with him and make suggestions.

I've been waiting for Jessica Biel to call me for a few years now. Rickey will probably call after Jessica does.

Justin Timberlake may have something to do with that... The Bastid! :1rotfl:

[Stu from NYC]

And there lies the problem . They are as incompetent as the ones riding the mowers ….

There is no accountability and their only answer is to name some or something else ! Does El Niño come to mind ???

That is why some changes should be in order

[Stu from NYC]

I have read all of the responses through #35. There is a discussion about adding people to supervise and assess conditions but no discussion on the cost and how it would be paid. Since the developer does not own the courses north of SR44 where much of the angst is centered, it appears that we will have multiple groups involved in making decisions about what to do and how much to spend. It strikes me as an approach that is fraught with problems. If my comments above are correct, my question is how do you secure a long-term, organized and coordinated approach that adequately funds the plan year-in and year-out in order to obtain the desired results?

I believe the developer owns all of the championship courses

[BrianL99]

I believe the developer owns all of the championship courses

The thread and discussion is about the Executive Courses, which are not owned by the Developer.

The Developer owns all the Championship courses and some of the Executive courses south of 44.

[Shipping up to Boston]

I agree 100%.

That said, the Championship Courses are a horse of another color. I'd love Rickey Craig (VP of Golf/Tennis) to call me and ask me to tour some of the courses with him and make suggestions.

I've been waiting for Jessica Biel to call me for a few years now. Rickey will probably call after Jessica does.

Met her when she was briefly at college in Boston area before going back to LA. Yes....they, I mean she....was as advertised!

[Annie66]

I believe the developer owns all of the championship courses

I believe you are correct. My thoughts were primarily focused on the executives courses.

[edtherock]

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

[golfing eagles]

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

[Stu from NYC]

And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

How is it possible that the folks who take care of the executive courses have no clue as to the condition of their courses?

Do they not check on the work of their employees?

[BrianL99]

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

Personally, I think that would just clutter up the areas at the Starter Shacks, which are already cluttered enough. Also, there's no "voter's booth". I think people are more comfortable criticizing, in the comfort of their own homes.

My suggestion, was to have 4 "fixed" questions, with 1-5 rating and a "rolling question", that could be anything they wanted.

I would simply ask: 1) How were the greens. 2) How were the fairways. 3) How were the Tee Boxes. 4) What was your overall satisfaction level.


And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

10 years ago, I'd agree with you. These days, not so much. People are more used giving "reviews" and with the analysis tools available these days, companies get a lot of valuable data from reviews and ratings.

[edtherock]

I disagree if I understand your message. I ran a 40 million dollar service business in the pulp and paper industry. About 8% of customers respond. Of those 8% there are basic averages -- the scale was 1-10. Anything below a 6 received IMMEDIATE attention from my team. Look up on the web : ------- Net Promoter Score------ and see how it works!
And you can certainly look at averages but AVERAGES ARE MEANINGLESS as you mentioned... What you are most concerned about is the number of low scoress you get and does the trend show it getting worst! If you have a better idea please list it here. I believe the people that play the courses are the ones complaining the last 12 months. So instead of trying to measure sentences and words and angry paragraphs and trying to interpret that data , use a simple survey.. NPS -- I believe-- while used more for profit and loss-- could be used for this situation.. When they want to increase our monthly fees and they get too many low scores, then they will have a hard time justifying that increase when the courses are rated low..

[Topgun 1776]

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

[asianthree]

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

Great viewpoint

[Topspinmo]

Good comment, given the increase in the amenity fee is capped at CPI.

I thought they remove cap couple years so ago? Read another article about putting cap back month or so ago?

[BrianL99]

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

As you said, it was a "synopsis", I left out plenty of detail. I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, not all the courses were constructed the same. Some of the early courses, they just moved around some dirt and planted 2 different kinds of grass. Their construction process evolved and later courses were (I was told) built to USGA Specifications. I don't believe that to be the case (I'm not suggesting anyone was lying or trying to mislead me). "USGA Specifications" are a bit of a moving target. It's not as simple as A, B, C & D and there are still plenty of ways to "cut corners", yet still claim to be "USGA Specs".

Secondly, I suspect (I have not verified) that not all the contracts are identical. The contracts have evolved through the years. I suspect the basic contract 15 years ago, was 3 pages & probably 28 pages now. The contracts I have read, were all 3 year contracts with provisions to "renew", without a new Bidding process. Again speculating, I suspect some were renewed, without a thorough evaluation of how good (or poor) of a job the contractor was doing.

You are 100% correct. Golf Greens are expected to endure a huge amount of foot traffic and if they're not constructed properly to begin with and properly maintained, the traffic is going to destroy them.

The "Pitch & Putts" are fairly new ... better construction and easier to maintain.

I have minimal experience with the Executive Courses from a playing perspective, but I suspect the "newer" the course, the better condition it was in. Most likely, owing to more careful original construction ... & in many cases as you pointed out, better maintenance contractors.

That's the best I can do, without getting too deep into the weeds.

IMO, we need new contractors, better contractors, more specific contracts, better oversight and an overall agronomy plan, with specific addendums to address the specific needs of every individual golf course.

[Shipping up to Boston]

As you said, it was a "synopsis", I left out plenty of detail. I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, not all the courses were constructed the same. Some of the early courses, they just moved around some dirt and planted 2 different kinds of grass. Their construction process evolved and later courses were (I was told) built to USGA Specifications. I don't believe that to be the case (I'm not suggesting anyone was lying or trying to mislead me). "USGA Specifications" are a bit of a moving target. It's not as simple as A, B, C & D and there are still plenty of ways to "cut corners", yet still claim to be "USGA Specs".

Secondly, I suspect (I have not verified) that not all the contracts are identical. The contracts have evolved through the years. I suspect the basic contract 15 years ago, was 3 pages & probably 28 pages now. The contracts I have read, were all 3 year contracts with provisions to "renew", without a new Bidding process. Again speculating, I suspect some were renewed, without a thorough evaluation of how good (or poor) of a job the contractor was doing.

You are 100% correct. Golf Greens are expected to endure a huge amount of foot traffic and if they're not constructed properly to begin with and properly maintained, the traffic is going to destroy them.

The "Pitch & Putts" are fairly new ... better construction and easier to maintain.

I have minimal experience with the Executive Courses from a playing perspective, but I suspect the "newer" the course, the better condition it was in. Most likely, owing to more careful original construction ... & in many cases as you pointed out, better maintenance contractors.

That's the best I can do, without getting too deep into the weeds.

IMO, we need new contractors, better contractors, more specific contracts, better oversight and an overall agronomy plan, with specific addendums to address the specific needs of every individual golf course.

Sounds like getting all of the above translates to more $$$. Maybe the no bid contracts and renewals are an effort to keep said costs down in the hopes El Nino type weather patterns take a powder every now and then and nobody will notice.

[BrianL99]

Sounds like getting all of the above translates to more $$$. Maybe the no bid contracts and renewals are an effort to keep said costs down in the hopes El Nino type weather patterns take a powder every now and then and nobody will notice.


I think we're spending a reasonable amount for maintenance, but not getting a quality product. So we need to either "get more for our money" or, spend more of it. I'm for the former, rather than the latter.

I've been trying not to get too deep in the weeds, but ...

The Contracting criteria, is sort of (IMO) slanted towards continuing to use the same contractors, year after year. Once you're "in" with The Villages, you're IN!

I'll give you a specific example. In order to bid on the Pimilco renovation job (Bid opening is next week), a company needs "10 years of golf course construction experience". I suspect the bidders are going to be the same guys who have worked for TV for the last 20 years. Hardly anyone else is qualified to bid.

Why does the company need 10 years of golf course building experience?

"Renovating" a golf course is way different than "building" a golf course. You have an existing golf course, that you're removing the grass and sand, then replacing it. Presumably, with an Architect's Plan and associated specific contract, that spells out exactly what has to be done and how to do it.

That job isn't brain surgery ... it's a site contractor's job. There's no thinking or design work involved ... you only need to know how to read plans and specifications, and move dirt.

I suggested: "instead of 10 years building golf courses", why not open the bidding up to site contractors, with a requirement that there's an approved, on-site superintendent on the job at all times, and that person has to have actual golf course construction/maintenance experience. That opens the bidding up to a lot more contractors. A smart site contractor would bid that job and then go hire a Super from a quality private course and bring him in to run the renovation job.

I'll be curious to see how many "golf course construction" companies bid the Pimilco job.

[Stu from NYC]

I think we're spending a reasonable amount for maintenance, but not getting a quality product. So we need to either "get more for our money" or, spend more of it. I'm for the former, rather than the latter.

I've been trying not to get too deep in the weeds, but ...

The Contracting criteria, is sort of (IMO) slanted towards continuing to use the same contractors, year after year. Once you're "in" with The Villages, you're IN!

I'll give you a specific example. In order to bid on the Pimilco renovation job (Bid opening is next week), a company needs "10 years of golf course construction experience". I suspect the bidders are going to be the same guys who have worked for TV for the last 20 years. Hardly anyone else is qualified to bid.

Why does the company need 10 years of golf course building experience?

"Renovating" a golf course is way different than "building" a golf course. You have an existing golf course, that you're removing the grass and sand, then replacing it. Presumably, with an Architect's Plan and associated specific contract, that spells out exactly what has to be done and how to do it.

That job isn't brain surgery ... it's a site contractor's job. There's no thinking or design work involved ... you only need to know how to read plans and specifications, and move dirt.

I suggested: "instead of 10 years building golf courses", why not open the bidding up to site contractors, with a requirement that there's an approved, on-site superintendent on the job at all times, and that person has to have actual golf course construction/maintenance experience. That opens the bidding up to a lot more contractors. A smart site contractor would bid that job and then go hire a Super from a quality private course and bring him in to run the renovation job.

I'll be curious to see how many "golf course construction" companies bid the Pimilco job.

I suspect the job will go to the same people who have made a mess of our courses.

If this was me the current supplier would not be allowed to bid.

[BrianL99]

I suspect the job will go to the same people who have made a mess of our courses.

If this was me the current supplier would not be allowed to bid.


So I have a little further information, based on a cursory review of the Executive Golf course maintenance bids for the last 7-8 years.

It appears that once a bid is accepted and contracted (usually for a few courses in a package), that contractor keeps the job.

It appears the District puts the contracts for Exec Course maintenance out for bid, when they're turned over to the District from the Developer. A contract is awarded for a length of time and then comes up for "renewal". It appears they are generally renewed with the same contractor (I haven't yet found a case where a winning bidder was not renewed. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that I haven't seen where it's happened in the last 8 or so years.)

I won't comment on the wisdom of that approach.

[Stu from NYC]

So I have a little further information, based on a cursory review of the Executive Golf course maintenance bids for the last 7-8 years.

It appears that once a bid is accepted and contracted (usually for a few courses in a package), that contractor keeps the job.

It appears the District puts the contracts for Exec Course maintenance out for bid, when they're turned over to the District from the Developer. A contract is awarded for a length of time and then comes up for "renewal". It appears they are generally renewed with the same contractor (I haven't yet found a case where a winning bidder was not renewed. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that I haven't seen where it's happened in the last 8 or so years.)

I won't comment on the wisdom of that approach.

For many years I was a purchasing manager dealing with my companies suppliers. I was married to my wife not my suppliers.

If they did not do a satisfactory job found a replacement. Do not understand loyalty to a firm ruining our courses

[Marathon Man]

Lots of comments on here. How many of you plan to attend the next meeting and speak there?

[HORNET]

Again ?