Your opinions on Master Plans

[SL_Solow]

Late to the party as usual.  When our course suffered significant damage from a storm, we created a committee to come up with a plan to retore/renovate/ remodel.  We utilized a program very similar to the one recommended by Tom.  We brought in 3 architects and asked them to present a proposal for what they would do given the condition of the course (a 1921 Colt & Alison with some Nugent and Lohman alterations) and our anticipated budget.  (Tom was busy on a small project called Pacific Dunes so he declined my invitation to participate.)   We selected Mark Mungeam and the GCAers who have seen the course generally approve of the work done.  More importantly, so do our members.  While we did not incorporate a master plan in our by laws, we have maintained our relationship with Mark who is on a small retainer and is paid to make one or two visits per year to advise us on issues as they arise.  Where tweaks are needed, nothing is done without his input and if real work is needed, he is compensated for his time and effort.  This has worked out very well for us.  Having an architect who is talented and understands your club in a consulting role (and Mark more than qualifies) is a good way to "thread the needle" on some of the concerns expressed in this thread.  Of course it also helps to have strong leaders involved who resist the urge to change things on a member's whim, even if they are the member with the whim.

[Kevin Norby]

Rick,

The question might really be "What is your Club or board looking to accomplish in pursuing a master plan"?  Are there specific projects and differing opinions on what the board would like to do and they're hoping a master plan might create some consensus? Or, are they really looking for a long range plan for capital improvements.  In my experience, the master plan process, whether you call it that or something else, is a great way to educate the membership on what the issues and priorities are. Bringing in an architect on a consulting basis is probably fine for some clubs if there is already a fairly clear understanding of what the issues are.

One of the really big benefits to going through the master plan process is that it helps to clarify  which issues are most important and so, as board members change, there is some ongoing continuity.

 It's always interesting to me how some clubs allow their board to make decisions on which improvements to proceed with while other clubs believe that every expenditure has to be voted on by the membership.  If the club has a master plan in place which has been adopted by their board, then the current board should have the ability to decide which improvements to proceed with and at what expense.  We just completed a master plan for a club in Minnesota went through the process of designing the first phase of improvements, awarded the project to the contractor and then at the annual meeting a small but vocal group of members stood up and announced to the board that they couldn't move forward with the project because it hadn't been voted on by the membership.  Even though their bylaws didn't require a vote by the membership, the board caved in and agreed to let the membership vote on the project.