For another dose of my real world, here is how municipal (and some others) budgets are prepared:
Year 1 - Do a master plan, which provides low, medium, and high budget projections based on critical minimum, reasonable high priority and full reconstruction plans. The owner picks the low budget, but has a total renovation in mind, not making the connection between spending and work scope.
Year 2 - Owner calls to see if there was any downward wiggle room on the low budget. We grudgingly comply, substituting other greens methods (down to push ups) less than full irrigation, etc.
Year 3 to 5 - Owner finally gets funding, doesn't account for 5 years of inflation, which in this case, adds at least 25% to the year one budgets, given how construction prices have spiked up. Owner also throws design fees, some new maintenance equipment and a few other things in what was supposed to be the golf course construction budget, reducing the budget about 10% more in real dollars.
Year 6 - Owner changes golf course architects, to find one who will tell them that their budget is okay.
Year 7 - Construction bidding starts, owner is aghast at how much things cost and is livid at everyone involved, except, of course, himself. Most of the time, the project gets downsized, or occasionally, the owner finds more money. Either way, he gives a bad reference to everyone involved.
The funny thing (not) is that over almost 40 years in the biz, that same mistake is still made far too often. We can kind of understand it because they might only do a golf course project once in their life, and somehow, they really don't think of anything that isn't sticks and bricks as real construction, somehow thinking golf courses are natural and not in need of real construction.
You would think someone would learn from experience......