4/16/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I trust that this letter sets forth our position accurately and clearly. That is, we have designed an efficient cost effective system that met the original and Revision No. 1 requirements. We can now only question why Revision No. 2 was imposed on not only our system but on the Toro design as well. Please advise as to what further assistance we can provide to you. Very truly yours, I Georgereenfield Golf Mznaper _ _ Mr. Sheldon informed the Board that where the letter states that the design was accepted by the architect, it was accepted by him, and Mr. Garl did not realize that the plan did not produce 2" of water on the greens. He further stated that Revision No. 1 in the letter is actually an original requirement as that is the industry standard. Discussion resumed as to the amount of water each system can produce in 6 days, and Mr. Sheldon believed the Toro system can put out the required gallonage over a 10 hour daily period while the Rain Bird system would take 101 hours 7 days a week. Norwood Glover, Vice President of Hector Supply Co., - speaking for the Toro system, advised that their running time will vary from 13 minutes to 27 minutes per head depending on the size head used. He claimed that Rain Bird is using a head that puts out 46 gpm, and they space them 90' apart while Toro has a heads that put out 65 gpm spaced 80' apart and they will cover at least 20% more of the golf course. Mr. Sheldon stated that the greater coverage is another reason for their recommending the Toro system as it is a factor to be considered in relation to the possible future disposal of effluent on the golf course. Commissioner Bird wished this could be a simpler, more clearcut issue, but unfortunately it is not, and we are in the eleventh hour and need to move ahead with ordering the material. He noted that we are paying the architect a goodly amount of money to advise us; we are building a golf course that will last 66 APR 16 1986 BOOK