Your opinions on Master Plans

[Rick Shefchik]

I am beginning my first year on the board of my club. I'll also be a member of the green committee. I'm already hearing from all corners about what should and shouldn't be done to/with the golf course.

I don't have a particular agenda. I simply love my course and want what's best for it -- which includes protecting it from the whims of first-year board members like me. I have informally raised the idea of producing a Master Plan, and when I do, I tend to get either quizzical or frightened responses. Some think a Master Plan sounds like Hitler preparing to take over Europe; others simply don't know what a Master Plan is, but have strong ideas about what should or shouldn't be changed on the course.

We're an older course -- the first nine holes opened for play in 1926, and we expanded to 18 holes in 1959. The architects were Tom Vardon and Paul Coates, who knew what they were doing. Like all courses, however, it is facing the demands of different constituencies: Younger, stronger players would like to toughen it up with a few more fairway bunkers and back tees; women and older players tend to like everything just the way it is. There is a smaller contingent that would like to improve the conditions of our tees and greens by taking out a few more trees. I could see immediately that serving on the green committee is going to be a balancing act between these factions, and I thought exploring a Master Plan might be a way to -- if not satisfy everyone -- at least be transparent when actions are taken.

If your course has a Master Plan, how did you go about devising it, and has it done what you you had hoped it would?
 

[JMEvensky]

If your club decides to do this,the most important thing,IMO, is to make it a part of the club's By Laws--make certain any changes/deviations require some super majority.The last thing you want is a situation whereby a Master Plan can be overridden by a handful of know-it-all Board members.

[PCCraig]

Be careful what you wish for. I use the master plan for my club, completed over 5 years ago, as a dart board in my office. 

[cary lichtenstein]

Good luck, hope you don't have a full time job

[Neil Davis]

Be careful what you wish for. I use the master plan for my club, completed over 5 years ago, as a dart board in my office. 

"tree screens"

[Mike Nuzzo]

How is the irrigation system?
Have you talked to your superintendent?

Cheers

[Rick Shefchik]

How is the irrigation system?
Have you talked to your superintendent?

Cheers

Hi, Mike,

The irrigation system is very good. We're as green as we want to be (we're in Minnesota), although we let the far edges of the rough brown out in this very dry September.

I have not talked to our super since I got on the board. I think he's really good, and a terrific guy, but he tends to do what the most recent green committee members tell him to do. I think a Master Plan could help him, but I certainly intend to have a long talk with him and find out his thoughts about the idea before I decide whether I want to advocate for it.

[John Crowley]

Rick,
IMO and from experience, first interview only experienced professional golf couse restoration architects. Then select the one that best fits your course and club culture. Get buy-in of the club membership to the concept of a master plan for the course.

Once the membership has approved the plan, no matter what the implementation schedule may be, amend the by- laws. The amendment should say in effect that any future changes to the course must comply with the plan and have the concurrence of the chosen professional architect.

Be ready for possible strong opposition and prepare an excellent case for the education of and communication to the membership.

Do not try to do the design or major construction elements in-house. Confine the scope of the master plan to the golf course, don't expand it to the clubhouse or other non- course aspects.
John

[Mike_Young]

Rick,
I have done masterplans but I did not fully understand the process from the club view until I watched our membership go thru the process at our club.  It is a DR built in 1925.  The membership voted for a Masterplan but the four or five guys that had their own agenda allowed the masterplan concept to become a 6 million dollar renovation of course and club.  When one ask to see a masterplan today they see a drawing of the changes these guys wanted done to the course.  They think that is a masterplan....in truth a drawing is a small part of a masterplan and I think that is the most overlooked part of the entire process.  You want a document telling you how and when to do what needs to be done over a five or ten year period.  It's great and critical to speak with the supt and the pro about such plans but know that the plan may outlast either of them.  If the board doesn't comprehend what it is then don't do it...JMO

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

You're right, but the problem is time.

As time goes by, if the "culture" isn't perpetuated, even by-law incorporation won't protect the course from future changes.

One of the items we incorporated in the by-laws was that no change could be made, including cart paths, without notification, consultation and approval by the consulting architect.

But as a dozen or so years went by, everyone forgot about the by-laws and changes were made.

I think you try to do the best you can during your time on the Board and hope that the culture and momentum continues for a few years after your service is over.

[Tony Ristola]

Pat,

Perhaps the by-law should be cemented into the clubhouse wall somewhere; so everyone can see it and it's not easily removed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have never had much luck with the "by laws" way to go.  There are just too many ideas floating out there to enforce it.

I have always favored 2-3 year maximum time frames, with one year being ideal.  I know that isn't possible, but most projects seem to stall out and lose momentum and direction.

As to Mike Young's comments, I see a lot more MP's tied to some kind of financial accounting/business plan to get some assurance that the money spent will actually get paid back (albeit, this is more in the public sector, but with a few private clubs doing it as well.    Someone posted a plan from NC here that started with a "vision statement" of where new members were going to come from, retention rates, etc.

Overall, MP's are getting a lot more detailed than in years past.  Even on "design only" I have seen master plans start with a comparitive analysis of conditions benchmarked to other clubs.  The point is to show members that the best club in town rakes bunkers 7 days a week for $250K per year, and if you want to match that, this is what the super needs to spend.  Again, is that your vision for the club, adding XX to everyone's dues for "perfect bunkers" or do you want less?  Will it get you new members if you are a mid level club, etc.  In other words, the old cost value benefits study.

Even on pure design issues, environmental/maintenance audits are becoming far more common, since evironmental sensitivity is typically a must.

And, I see a lot more design detail up front.  One architect told me that he does complete grading plans now as part of the MP (or at least bulk grading)  instead of just idea sketches (maybe not needed every job) After years of being asked if he was "sure" about cost estimates, he (and others) figured it was better to do more work up front to satisfy the desire for real bottom line numbers.

You might end up with architect leading the biz, enviro, turf, arborist and maybe a few other consultants in the door, all asking really nosy questions!  That may seem overblown, and its quite possible that these clubs are just" paying more to ignore" some good design solutions.  So, it may not be your fathers master plan anymore.  That master plan would probably be called a "sketch study" or course evaluation, or maybe even a two day site visit with some ideas.  And that may be all you need.

[Mike McGuire]

If you have a budget to actually do work for the next couple years go for it. If not don't waste everyones time.

With a small budget better to choose an architect to do a visit once or twice a year to give suggestions. He can tell you what trees to remove and where the mowing lines should be.

Those two things will make a big difference for a small cost and you have someone to blame when members complain.

If you want to add bunkers or tees your architect can help you on a project by project basis.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Ideally you would want a plan to guide it.  If the club does four holes one year, and doesn't consider the overall course, it might end up with 16 holes with fw bunkers right, or something else like that.

Granted, there are some things like tree removal that can be handled independently.  I recall getting called to a course to look at one tree for removal.  Members groused it blocked tee shots that faded off the tee.  I actually recommended it stay, and short hitters learn to play left.  It was gone in a year.

Probably deserves another thread, but some other of those "big questions I get called in for" included a club that wanted to do cart paths right now, and then do a master plan.  I explained that some greens or tees might move, etc. and it is best to wait to make sure all the paths really work.  Even where they don't move, I think I can provide value in rerouting (especially since in Texas, as close to the fw middle as possible seems to be the current thinking).  Those paths were done in a year.

Short version, it varies all over the map as to how influential an architects recommendations are.  Often, the greens chair wants to do what he wants to do, expects the gca to rubber stamp it, and does it anyway (or finds another) if he doesn't. 

In general, restoration reno's are 3X harder than new courses, and the fees tend to be 1/3.  Bad deal for many gca's!

[Mike McGuire]

Mike,

Ideally you would want a plan to guide it.  If the club does four holes one year, and doesn't consider the overall course, it might end up with 16 holes with fw bunkers right, or something else like that.

If you are going to do 4 holes for sure have a master plan.

My comment was if you dont have a budget to do any work dont bother getting a plan.

[Ian Andrew]

Rick,

Most clubs in Canada have a Master Plan because we tend as a culture to work with existing capital. We don’t see the harm or issue with taking a decade or more to complete a renovation or restoration. Since we tend to work with smaller amounts of annual capital spending, the Master Plan identifies connected projects for efficiencies or how to group projects to only disturb an area once. 

We also have a culture of consistent in house work such as tree removal, grassing changes and tee work. Many superintendents use the plan to find small projects that fit manpower or left over capital in their own budgets. In my own case I provide a booklet, which allows new members on the board or committee to read through all the documentation and immediately come up to speed on how the plan was developed. This avoids starting the process again a few years later. I find it helps maintain the focus and avoid personal agendas.

I also find it very important to share all documentation with members on line, available plans and booklets and finally with multiple meetings with the membership at large. I find this process helps engage the membership by explaining why.

Others can dump on the Master Plan for whatever reasons they have, but I personally have found it helps the club focus on the things that matter most like growing environments, grassing lines and how the course should play, rather than just bunkers and waterfalls.

[Tim Liddy]

A Master Plan is a valuable document and process. It educates about opportunities and constraints as well as defines the goals and values of it's members. Having long term and short term focus is invaluable for these committees that meet irregularly and with changing membership.

[Jim_Coleman]

    We hired Gil Hanse to do a master plan about 10 years ago.  He did a nice job, making many interesting proposals.  The board at that time didn't like everything in the plan, and had it modified before presenting it to the membership for inclusion in the by-laws.  One thing I remember the board rejecting was Hanse's suggestion that we introduce fescue to the course, particularly around bunkers.  The membership rejected the proposal that the plan be incorporated into the by-laws, even with Gil present at the meeting to support the board.  I was opposed to the by-law idea, and very pleased with the vote.  I didn't like the idea of tying the hands of the club in perpetuity because one board happened to like one particular plan (that it saw fit to modify) at one point in time.  I had no problem with having a plan as a point of reference for future architectural decisions.  But to say this would be the only possible way to go without re-amending the by-laws seemed wrong to me.
     As it turned out, we hired Ron Force's outfit (with Jim Nagle the point man) to make major renovations to bunkers and other things.  Although Hanse's plan was taken into account, it was far from the last word.  We're very happy with what we've done.
     The point of this missive  -  incorporating a plan into the by-laws is not the way to go, at least in my opinion.

[Ed Homsey]

It is doubtful that one approach fits all, but my experience strongly supports the creation of a golf course master plan and a bylaw provision that requires that certain changes to the golf course comply with the master plan, and be done under the direction of a golf course architect.  The bylaw permits changes to the master plan--again, under direction of the architect.  Our master plan and bylaw provision have been in effect since 1999.  The MP was created during my reign as Greens Chairman, involving many meetings of a fairly sizeable committee representing all segments of the club, working closely with our golf course architect, Ian Andrew.  By the end of the process, there was complete buy-in from the committee, and the BOG.  The membership voted approval of the MP and the bylaws provision.  Since its creation, the MP has undergone periodic reviews and revisions, under the direction of our architect, with approval of the Board, and with involvement of Greens Chairmen, golf pro, and others.  It has been a living, respected, and valuable document, and is posted on our website for membership viewing.  There are many pieces of it that are not likely to be completed for a few years.  Our Superintendent has been a major proponent of, and participant in the MP since its inception.  He is greatly appreciative of it, and has often called upon it to protect the course from spur-of-the-moment impulses.   

[Mike McGuire]

I am beginning my first year on the board of my club. I'll also be a member of the green committee. I'm already hearing from all corners about what should and shouldn't be done to/with the golf course.

I don't have a particular agenda. I simply love my course and want what's best for it -- which includes protecting it from the whims of first-year board members like me. I have informally raised the idea of producing a Master Plan, and when I do, I tend to get either quizzical or frightened responses. Some think a Master Plan sounds like Hitler preparing to take over Europe; others simply don't know what a Master Plan is, but have strong ideas about what should or shouldn't be changed on the course.

We're an older course -- the first nine holes opened for play in 1926, and we expanded to 18 holes in 1959. The architects were Tom Vardon and Paul Coates, who knew what they were doing. Like all courses, however, it is facing the demands of different constituencies: Younger, stronger players would like to toughen it up with a few more fairway bunkers and back tees; women and older players tend to like everything just the way it is. There is a smaller contingent that would like to improve the conditions of our tees and greens by taking out a few more trees. I could see immediately that serving on the green committee is going to be a balancing act between these factions, and I thought exploring a Master Plan might be a way to -- if not satisfy everyone -- at least be transparent when actions are taken.

If your course has a Master Plan, how did you go about devising it, and has it done what you you had hoped it would?
 

Wondering which way you are leaning ?  Seems like a wide range of ideas here.

[Rick Shefchik]

Honestly, I'm even less certain about what we should do than I was before I read these thoughtful replies. The trick is to try to fit what I know about my club's membership into the narratives that I've read about other clubs. Are we the kind of club that could get a consensus of the membership to put a Master Plan into the by-laws? If not, isn't a MP doomed to be ignored, re-written or worked around by successive green committees?

Knowing that there's a general level of satisfaction with our golf course throughout the membership, I suspect that support for a wide-ranging MP that would become part of our by-laws would meet with lukewarm support, at best. This, of course, means we would remain open to spontaneous decisions by a few members in positions of authority. I think the key for us right now is to simply identify the areas where a strong majority of members think some improvement is possible, and agree as a green committee to focus our attention there. I know that will be easier said than done. 

[PCCraig]

Rick,

If a master plan is too far reaching and too permanent maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to hire an architect to come out and complete a report on the strengths/weaknesses etc. of Stillwater...essentially putting his thoughts down on an official document for future reference. The report could be as simple as notes for each hole ie "trees on right side in front of bunker should be removed because they form a double hazzard" or "green expansion on XYZ hole should be considered." I'm guessing most of the things brought up would be pretty fundamental and basic.

That way, at least the Green Committee has something to work off of in the future and they can point the membership to as an outside expert who was hired by the club.

If the club becomes interested in any major projects in the future, they could call up said GCA for guidance and/or have him help onsite.

Just a thought.

[Tom_Doak]

Rick:

Naturally, I think the process I see at most clubs is all wrong.

The master plan process is nearly always driven by a few members who think they already know the answers, who interview architects to look for someone who will back up their own vision.  Then, a lot of money is invested in preparing a master plan, so that everyone at the club feels bound to go through with it, whether they like it or not.

My advice would be to go PCraig one or two steps further, and to pay three different architects to come visit the club and write a three-page summary of what they think are the strengths and weaknesses of the course and what direction the club should take ... and then to share those visions with the members [or at least a cross-section of members] and see where there is a consensus.

I've never seen a master plan [other than a total, literal restoration to exactly what was there before] that was infallible or carried out to its perfect completion.  At nearly all of the clubs where I consult, I have replaced another architect who wrote a full master plan that was later found to be wanting.  Incorporating such a document into the by-laws of the club is the height of arrogance ... and even where this has been done, it was eventually ignored so that we could go ahead and do the right thing.

A Devil's advocate can sometimes save you a lot of money, whereas when you only hear one opinion, it is easy for that person to steer you toward more work when it is in his own interest.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is an element of fear at most places about "change for the sake of change."  I recall asking earthmovers how best to move dirt.  Not surprisingly, the guy with trucks said trucks, the guy with scrapers said scrapers, etc.  Investing is similar.  A bond guy says bonds, a stock guy says stocks. The same goes for architects.  If you call one in, they probably figure you want them to do what they do best.

I have had great luck actually avoiding calling stuff a master plan, and do what a few have suggested.  If I cannot say that a particular feature on a given hole is a problem, and many of the club or course players nod their head, then I won't propose a change. It seems easier to "sell" fixing something that really needs fixing, rather than a comprehensive plan of change. 

Of course, that isn't always possible.  Some courses have so much deferred maintenance, they really would be best served starting from scratch, no matter what style (preservation, total blow up) you end up implementing.

[Ian Andrew]

Rick, do what you think is right, I just want to defend the process at this point.

I actually wrote this for my blog, but thought I would share it. I believe in the value of the process. I don't see the process as just producing a plan, but something much larger and more deeply involved. Perhaps that's unique to me, perhaps its not. But I find the clubs I work with enjoy the process and have no trouble moving forward with projects because of the depth of information available and the clarity of the process.

I actually wrote this as my recent blog after this thread came up.


Why a Master Plan?

You don’t run a business without a business plan, so why would you renovate your golf course without a comprehensive look at what you are trying to achieve.

I believe this is the one opportunity to talk about the big picture and philosophy of what you are trying to accomplish before you start to look at projects. You need to talk about expectations. You need to address issues like attracting future members. You must talk about how you want the course to play on a day to day basis. Often many of these philosophical questions influence the direction of the Master Plan. Understanding growing environments may be the single most important aspect of this process.

The most important part of Master Planning is having a broad based committee that represents the entire club’s playing membership. If the committee is well struck, the Master Plan process is usually fun and educational since many members of the committee learn a great deal more about the play of other players and the issues a superintendent faces in meeting expectations. Once well educated about both, the process becomes a sorting through all the possibilities to find a solution that fits the culture of the club which must including the financial aspects.

The Master Plan focuses the club on what needs to be addressed or what needs improvement. It helps the membership decide on capitol allocation, which often competes with the clubhouse and other areas with “plans.” It identifies connected projects for efficiencies, provides a breakdown of costs and even includes a recommended phasing plan on how to get the work done within the typical yearly capital allocations available for improvements.

Most clubs have a culture of consistent in house work such as tree removal, grassing changes and tee work. Many superintendents use the plan to find small projects that fit manpower or left over capital in their own budgets. It allows us to take on some smaller projects in short notice if wither the circumstance demand action or the capital surprise opens up a late season opportunity.
My Master Plans happen to include a Master Plan Booklet, which allows new members on the board or committee to read through all the documentation and immediately come up to speed on how the plan was developed. This avoids starting the process again a few years later. I find it helps maintain the focus and avoid personal agendas. It also helps the process continue on through the decade without re-starting as boards change.

I even recommend all documentation be shared on line with the membership. I provide the plan, images and booklets and suggest they be available at the clubhouse at all times. I also run multiple meetings with the membership at large to help engage the membership by explaining why we need to make the changes we recommend.
I see all of this as a written and illustrated step by step instruction about the club, what problems need addressing, what recommendations have been made, they have images that show what they will all look like, they have breakdowns of what it will cost and finally how will it impact you the member. Since all my work is over ten or twenty years, not one, its a long term roadmap for us to get all the work done.

That’s why I do them, because the members of the committee and club can read through the entire process and answer all those questions by the time they finish the document and make an informed decision on whether they want to spend money on projects or not.