Golf Course Management

AUG 2019

Golf Course Management magazine is dedicated to advancing the golf course superintendent profession and helping GCSAA members achieve career success.

Issue link: http://gcmdigital.gcsaa.org/i/1147798

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 61 of 107

dents well-schooled in architecture who are capable of leading a bun- ker renovation in-house. So does Clarke. "A lot of clubs do in-house projects, and they hire us to come in and do the specialty stuff," Clarke says. "But their (crew members) do a lot of the heavy lifting beforehand — and they do it well and efficiently. But a lot of courses just don't have the staff." Staffing matters Ah, the staff. If courses are contemplating doing a bunker project in-house, they had better keep in mind that they'll be spreading their crew members a bit thin during the project. If four workers are as- signed to a bunker renovation project, that's four fewer members mow- ing greens and fairways, setting cups and performing other normal daily maintenance tasks on the course. "Something could suffer," Matthews says. So communication is vital. e superintendent must inform the powers that be — whether that's the owner, the greens committee and/ or the members — that balancing a bunker renovation project along with day-to-day maintenance can come at a price. And it's a price a golf course has to pay in order to save money by doing construction in-house. Sometimes, a superintendent might be put in the unenviable posi- tion of being told by superiors that a bunker renovation will be done in-house, even if the superintendent knows that it's not the best idea. Clarke realizes it's difficult for superintendents to say "no" when faced with such a predicament. The bunker renovation project that architect W. Bruce Matthews III oversaw at Cascade Hills CC included this work on the greenside bunkers on the club's first hole.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Golf Course Management - AUG 2019