[Dilligas]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

👏👏👏👏👏👏 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..........

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by Dilligas

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]

Originally Posted by jarodrig

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]

Originally Posted by 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!!

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

[jarodrig]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by 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!!

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

what NJ course?