master

Mount Bruno Master Renovation Plan
Country Club

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Richard Rousseau – Vice President

Lee Harrison – President [email protected]

[email protected] Julie Sylvestre – Women’s Captain

Guthrie Stewart – Captain [email protected]

[email protected] Pierre Dozois – Honorary Secretary

Claude Bédard – Honorary Treasurer [email protected]

[email protected] Larry Cannon – Director & Green Committee Chair

Jean Bédard – Director & House Committee Chair [email protected]

[email protected] Trevor Anderson

Steve Foley – Director & Membership Committee Chair [email protected]

[email protected] Mark Culver

COURSE PLANNING COMMITTEE [email protected]

Ian Wetherly – Committee Chair Barry MacDonald

[email protected] [email protected]

Larry Cannon Cover Image: proposed new design for Hole #10

[email protected]

Diane Dunlop Hébert

[email protected]

Richard Rousseau

[email protected]

MEMO to the MEMBERS

To: Members of Mount Bruno Country Club
From: Ian Wetherly, CPC Chairman

In 2019, after our successful centenary celebrations, a Long-Term Planning Committee was created to review the state of our club as we
began our second century of club operations.

The work of that committee included a review of our golf course, and a Course Planning Committee (CPC) was mandated to examine the
state of our golf course and its ability to meet our Statement of Values. Our goal has been to design a path towards “…the highest level of
playing conditions attainable in our climate” sustainably into our long-term future.

The first issue addressed was a review of our long-term relationship with course architect Tom McBroom. Four firms were selected for
interview, and Andy Staples was retained as the new consulting course architect for MBCC.

With Andy as our new course architect consultant, an exhaustive review of our course infrastructure was undertaken, using our Willie Park
Jr. heritage as a guide. This began with an analysis of our green complexes in minute scientific detail. Over decades, the original intent of
play has devolved with decades of encroachment, combined with modern green speeds, that have reduced materially the variety of hole
locations we can use, and ultimately the enjoyment of our golf course.

Issues such as green substructures, agronomics, turf sustainability, bunkering, drainage, teeing grounds for different swing speeds, and even
our course routing were looked at with a critical eye. You will find in this report the conclusions of this review, and the recommendations
that have been made by the CPC to upgrade, restore, and modernize our golf course, preparing it for a sustainable future and making it
eminently more enjoyable for all of our members.

It is with excitement and enthusiasm that we share the conclusion of this work with our membership – one of the most important
milestones in the history of our club. We are all stewards of what came before us, and also what we will leave behind. Once implemented,
our course will not only be much more enjoyable for all levels of play, but also much more sustainable into a long-term future.

Thank you for your consideration.



ABOUT OUR COURSE

Mount Bruno Country Club is one of the most storied and enduring clubs in Canada, with a reputation of being one of the finest in our
nation in both our course and our member experience. The club traces its beginnings back to 1897, when an enterprising young man
named Edson Loy (E.L.) Pease purchased 1,000 acres upon Mont-Saint-Bruno with visions of creating a secluded summer retreat. Pease
would eventually rise to become the president of the Royal Bank of Canada in 1916, and would at that time commission Willie Park Jr.,
two-time Open Champion and famed golf architect, to design and build the course. With a great piece of land and shared enthusiam
for the property, the final product was one that Park Jr. described as “equal to any course, in any part of the world”.

Construction began in 1918, and the course was opened for play in 1920. By 1922, it was selected to host the Canadian Open (won by
Al Watrous), and was again for 1924 (won by Leo Diegel). It was at this time that fellow golf architect Stanley Thompson was brought
to Mount Bruno to conduct a full survey of the course- a plan that has encapsulated well the original course design.

OUR INVESTMENT STORY

Research on capital expenditures made by the Long-Range Planning Committee clearly shows a history of Club investments and growth
since the course was built in 1918. We built the original clubhouse in 1921, which burned down and was replaced with the current
clubhouse in 1924. Many more improvements followed over the century including the golf shop (1929), a practice facility (1969), a
Quonset (1974), a couple of ponds (1977 & 1982), and our new, and necessary, maintenance facility (2008). Most recently, we worked
to renovate and solidify our clubhouse in time for our Centenary – a $5.5M investment.

However, the golf course – our largest asset and point of pride – has not received the same level of attention. The only documented
large-scale investment was a $3.1M project implemented in 2001. This included new tee boxes, a new automated irrigation system,
more drainage, and the re-building of bunkers, as well as the new bathrooms between Holes #5 and 14, the construction of our pond
between Holes #14, 15 and 16, and minor improvements to the practice facility. Before that, the last documented changes were made
in the 1930’s when the 12th green was shifted. And while we have been great stewards in preserving the original routing and many
features from Willie Park Jr.’s vision, the fact is that, in essence, our greens and fairways are over 104 years old. Our climate is changing,
as is legislation on chemicals and water usage. Our course is simply not ready for these changes. The story is in the receipts… the time
to invest in the course is NOW!

THE CPC PROCESS JUNE 2018 OCTOBER 2018

Following our Club’s Centenary, the Long-Range Planning Committee CPC begins initial Initial discussions
was formed to establish a plan for our future. As a part of this plan, the discussions about about what a formal
Course Planning Committee (CPC) was mandated to prepare a formal long- Long Rang Plan for the
term plan for our course which would include an evaluation of the overall reviewing the course should include.
condition of the course’s infrastructure. The Committee’s initial list of current course Examples from other
priorities was as follows: improvement plan. clubs reviewed for

• Redo the bunkers to fix sand inconsistencies and the many SPRING 2020 the first time.
downhill lies to greens which run away from bunkers.
Historical research SUMMER 2020
• Upgrade and expand the practice area (including the short and documentation
game area) to accommodate increased usage. work completed and COVID-19 slows
presented to the CPC. progress with work
• Implement new forward tees to make the course more continued remotely.
playable for all skill levels. Research on course
changes, strengths and
• Remove select trees to open up viewsheds, air circulation, deficiencies of property.
and sunlight across the course.
DECEMBER 2021 FEBRUARY 2022
A needs analysis of the course’s infrastructure (greens, bunkers, and
irrigation system) revealed some very serious deficiencies that would need CPC reviews and Bid specification created on
to be addressed sooner rather than later. With these issues as the basis summarizes feedback current draft of plan and
for their work going forward, the Course Planning Committee’s mandate on the initial plan and
began to prepare a plan for the long-term sustainability and playability of provides information to submitted for initial costing.
our course, and select a golf architect to facilitate and carry out that plan Andy Staples to further
moving forward. Extensive research of
refine the plan. similar projects across
North America, scope of
work, costing, schedule

of execution, etc.

WINTER 2019 MAY 2019 SUMMER 2019 OCTOBER 2019 DECEMBER 2019

CPC is formally The CPC decides that an Four firms are Candidate follow up to Andy Staples is awarded
asked to prepare a architect search will be interviewed and asked review each proposal the mandate to develop
long-term plan for to submit proposals:
part of the process. Trevor Anderson visits the master plan.
the golf course. Jeff Mingay example of each candidate’s
Terms of Reference for Ian Andrew
the long-term plan are Andy Staples work and meets with key
created and a short list of Tom McBroom individuals involved with the
architects is finalized.
respective projects.

FALL 2020 MAY 2021 SUMMER 2021 SEPTEMBER 2021 OCTOBER 2021

Mission Statement for CPC works with Andy The CPC hold on course Extended on-site time by GreenScan 3D is on
the long-range plan is to create a series of 4 meetings to review some Staples is used to chat site do a scan all
adopted by the CPC with articles based on varying of the initial concepts that with member groups putting surfaces.
initial concepts for main topics that are critical to while playing and refine
have been proposed. initial concepts. Formal presentation
issues presented. the Master Plan. to the CPC of the first
The series of 4 architecture completed concept
The Chimera Group articles are distributed to plan and on-course tour
is retained to do a
sustainability assessment the membership. with Andy Staples.
of our playing surfaces.

JUNE 2022 JULY 2022 AUGUST 2022 SEPTEMBER 2022 OCTOBER 2022

The refined plan is CPC visits Meadowbrook Budget is reviewed and Project information Information package
presented to the Long- CC in Detroit to tour the finalized based on most sessions begin with sent to members
Range Planning Committee golf course and meet with committees of club as Project Town Hall
and the Board along with a key individuals involved recent plan changes. well as past presidents meeting
and past captains.
preliminary budget. in their project.

Further examination of
the current plan is made
by the CPC and discussed
with Andy, appropriate

changes are made.

MEET THE ARCHITECT

Four golf architecture firms were interviewed by the CPC in 2019 as candidates to carry out the
Master Planning process. After an impressive interview, we were pleased to announce that Mr. Andy
Staples was retained as the new consulting course architect for MBCC.

Andy has nearly 30 years of experience as a golf architect and has headed his Arizona-based firm,
Staples Golf Design, since 2002. Andy has become a self-made expert on the design philosophies of
Willie Park Jr. – our original course architect, and comes with a wealth of knowledge of the golf course
styles and designs of Willie Park Jr. throughout the world. This expertise ultimately led Andy to be
engaged by Olympia Fields in Chicago, along with Weston G&CC in Toronto, to conduct restoration
projects for both courses. His completed work at Meadowbrook Country Club in Northville, MI is
testament to that expertise, and played a major role in our Board’s selection.

Andy’s designs focus on artistic expression rooted in the game’s founding principles. He prefers to use strategic concepts and visual
deception that invite the golfer to execute thoughtful decision making and weigh situational risk-reward. His courses have been
described as bold, one-of-a-kind, and fun to play, and he aims to inspire all levels of golfer to return to the game again and again.

A key feature of Mr. Staples’ presentation to Bruno was his emphasis on sustainability in design. His approach emphasizes the best use
of scarce resources, environmental stewardship, and consideration of the impact of any course changes on maintenance standards
and costs. These considerations have been at the forefront of our long-term plan for the future.

Andy’s industry experience, knowledge of historic design, innovative spirit, and dedication to “leaving the game better than he found
it” have been apparent throughout our Master Planning process, and we have full confidence that he will lead this renovation to a
successful conclusion.

Press play in the window on the following page to view a video message from Andy
regarding our project! For more information about his firm and previous projects, be
sure to visit www.StaplesGolfDesign.com or click the logo to the right.

ANDY’S VIDEO INTRODUCTION

MASTER PLANNING PROCESS

Following the selection of Andy Staples as our consulting golf course architect, our
team worked to refine our Project Vision, Goals, & Objectives in order to guide the
planning process. Additionally, we worked to create a framework of research and
analysis strategies in accordance with this Vision in order to guide the Master Planning
Process in line with the CPC recommendations.

With this organized approach, Andy and our team conducted a thorough analysis of
our existing course, history, and membership to guide the development of the design.
This included:

• Conversations with Superintendent, Trevor Anderson, on his observations and
recommendations

• On-site analysis of the course’s condition, strategy, aesthetics, and playability

• Detailed green scans to show the intricate historic contouring of our greens
and green surrounds and confirm their original extents

• Historical research of course aerials, records, and photos to analyze the
original course character and its evolution since 1918

• Georeferencing and analysis of the 1924 survey by Stanley Thompson, which
showed much of the course’s original layout

• Playing the course with various member groups to analyze playability and
collect feedback on desired course improvements

All of this information was taken into consideration and used to develop a Conceptual
Plan. This concept gave us both a direction in terms of the course design and character
as well as the basis for estimating renovation procedures, costs, scheduling, and
feasibility. All of these considerations went through multiple rounds of revision with
the CPC to create what we feel is the best-fit plan to achieve our vision for today and
for the future!

VISION STATEMENT

“To enhance – and where appropriate restore – our golf
course, recognizing and respecting our Willie Park Jr. heritage

while creating a sustainable course which will be enjoyable
and challenging for all members, and position us amongst the

finest courses and clubs in Canada.”

MASTER PLAN GOALS AREAS OF FOCUS

• Improve our responsible use of resources • Sustainability
• Instill an architectural design that is • Putting surfaces – slopes & sizes
• Bunker quality and strategic placement
pleasing to the eye and interesting to • Teeing Equity / Yardage
play • Fescue plantings & tree management
• Create a design suited for all skill levels • Cart Paths
• Maintain a high level of challenge and • Practice Area
strategy
• Be a place to learn and grow one’s game



SITE & CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

As part of the Master Planning process, the Course Planning Committee, along with
golf course architect Andy Staples and Golf Course Superintendent Trevor Anderson,
looked at all aspects of our existing course in order to assess each of the individual
parts to be addressed, either separately or as a whole, to create a long-term plan
for the course. The main areas where major issues were identified are the following:
greens, tees, bunkers, turf species (grass), irrigation, and sustainability.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

• The core infrastructure of our greens is over 104 years old and not well suited
to upholding the modern standard of conditions, green speeds, or traffic.

• The current tees are not positioned equitably for all skill levels/demographics
of our membership, especially in regards to our beginner and senior members.

• The bunkers implemented in 2001 have a host of drainage and design issues
that are detrimental to playability, maintainability, and conditions, and are not
reflective of the original design intent.

• The undesirable mix of Poa and bentgrass across our tees, greens, and fairways
is creating unnecessary pressures in maintaining quality turf conditions that
would be alleviated through a full conversion to the latest bentgrass variety.

• The irrigation system is in need of a “modernization” in order to improve water
use efficiency, precision control, and to keep up with the latest technology.

• The course as-is is ill prepared for the future; however, investment into
addressing the above issues will set us up for long-term sustainability.

“THE ISSUES” - GREENS

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

The greens at Mount Bruno are a defining characteristic of the
course and the club. They have always been a source of pride for the
membership and there is no plan for that to ever change. However,
a very deep and reflective evaluation of the greens revealed several
deficiencies that the Course Planning Committee feels a need to
address in order for our putting surfaces to remain a source of pride
for the club long term.

Our greens have changed significantly over their 104-year history,
resulting in notably smaller greens than were originally constructed
in 1918. As the green perimeters have condensed over the years,
the remaining putting surfaces have often become dominated by
strong features or severe cross slope, and many of the interesting pin
positions that once existed are no longer there. With modern day
green speeds, the combination of strong slopes and reduced area
has minimized our pinnable locations on the putting surfaces, as
was confirmed by a professional scan of the putting surfaces done in
October 2021. This lack of pin locations results in less interesting as
the minimal area available is used more frequently. More importantly,
it can compromise turf quality and health due to the elevated foot
traffic across a smaller area of the green surface, as we saw during our
increased play in 2020 and 2021.

Green scan and slope analysis for Hole #15 showing
the slope severity and limited pinnable area

(click here to view the analysis for all 18 holes)

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? (cont.)

Although there have been significant changes to the greens at the surface over the years, the one thing that has not changed
– and perhaps the most important element – is the infrastructure below the surface. The greens at Mount Bruno are built
in a style that is referred to as “Push Up”, meaning they simply pushed up soil to create the green. This was often done with
heavier soils that would hold moisture as access to irrigation was limited to non-existent in those days. This style of green
also contained no internal drainage to remove excess water.

Unfortunately, almost every aspect of how greens were constructed in 1918 is no longer desirable today. Advancements in
agronomics, coupled with the continued desire for better putting conditions, have highlighted the weaknesses in our greens’
infrastructure. We have attempted to mitigate these deficiencies for years with agronomic practices such as sand topdressing,
which is used to help move water away from the surface and dilute organic material. This has helped, but unfortunately has
created other issues like sand dams along the edges of the greens that restrict excess water flow from exiting the surface and
create the potential for ice damage in the winter and rapid turf decline in the summer.

Slope chart comparing maximum allowable slope based
on desired green speed. At a stimp (green speed) of
12, the recommended slope range for pinnable areas
is between 1-3%. Many areas of our greens greatly
exceed this range which, due to our gradual shrinking
of green surface area and increase in green speeds, has
significantly limited our total pinnable area.
(Chart source: USGA Green Section, ‘Putting Green
Speeds, Slopes, and “Non-Confroming” Hole Locations’
by Jerry Lemons)

“THE ISSUES” - GREENS

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?

In order to resolve the issues with our greens, we are proposing a renovation to a modern sand-based profile. This will
include the coring out of the existing green subgrade and replacing it with 10”-14” of a sand-based green mix that will be
extensively tested to ensure optimal growing conditions, drainage, and longevity within our climate. Additionally, subsurface
drainage will be installed under the greens mix to facilitate the movement of water out of the green profile during times of
heavy rain, while allowing the green to retain moisture during times of drought.

This sand-based profile will improve both the conditions and sustainability of our putting surfaces. They will provide a
growing medium that is better suited to support a 100% bentgrass surface the desired turf species for our climate. This will
provide more consistency in green speeds and create a more uniform aesthetic character. Additionally, the combination of
bentgrass with a sand-based profile will facilitate much deeper root growth that will be much more resilient across our varied
climatic conditions (discussed in further detail in the Turf Species / Grassing section).

In addition to improved conditions, the necessary renovation of our greens gives us a prime opportunity to restore the
surface area on our green edges that have been lost over the years. This will help us to expand our pinnable locations across
the green while maintaining the internal contouring that is the hallmark of our green’s character. These expansions will also
be reflective of the original Willie Park Jr. green designs for our course, furthering our historic heritage while also restoring
some of the original design strategy of the course.

As a final piece, we are also proposing to rebuild Hole #12 green back in its original location near Hole #13 tees, as well as
the complete rebuild of Hole #17 green. The restoration of green #12 brings back the original Park design, with a strategy
that adds a bit more challenge to the hole while allowing for better visibility to the green from the tees. The current green
#17 was a green rebuilt over the years, and does not fit the style and playability of the rest of the course. The new green will
be lowered, and expanded to create a green more fitting with the rest of the greens on the course.

Sand-based root zone (left) vs our current push-up root zone (right) Sand dam on Hole #? green due to high topdressing requirements

SAND-BASED GREEN PROFILE 2” perforated drain
tile set in 6”- 8” sand
RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION
Sand-based greens mix filled trench
(10”- 14”)
Existing subgrade
material

“THE ISSUES” - TEES & YARDAGES

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

The obvious issue with our tees- and the one first noted by the Course Planning Committee- is that our golf course is simply
too long for some members. The original thought was to resolve this by adding a few forward tees on problematic holes
to make the course more playable; however, further evaluation revealed that there was much more to the conversation
surrounding tees that was initially thought.

Our more thorough analysis found that a poor balance in our tee sizing. Many are larger than required given the amount
of play at the Club, while many others need to be enlarged to ease divot concentration during the season. Additionally,
many of our tees are perched up in the air and do not fit well with the flatter landscape of our property. Finally (and
most importantly), our current tee setup does not equitably serve the membership. While the need for forward tees was
immediately recognized, we also discovered much room for improvement in the positioning of our tee yardage distribution
both on a hole-by-hole basis as well as our overall scorecard yardage. These changes need to be made to ensure that we are
properly positioned to serve all skill levels and demographics of golfer moving forward.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?

As a part of the Master Planning process, Andy Staples has conducted a full assessment of our tees through the lens of
“teeing equity”, in which tee positions are distributed based on actual swing speed to facilitate a similar play experience for
golfers of all skill levels. This analysis was used to draw an initial teeing concept plan which was then rigorously compared to
existing site conditions and Club feedback and adjusted to a best-fit layout.

The proposed tees will provide a much more even distribution that will create a more equitable experience of each hole’s
strategy from the tees no matter the skill level. Additionally, we will proceed with adding a set of Forward tees (graded into
the fairways) to better accommodate beginner and senior play. Finally, this plan gives us the chance to resolve the sizing
and aesthetic issues noted while reusing as much existing teeing area as possible to ensure a cost-effective and limited
disturbance renovation.

“The basis of good tee positioning is rooted in the concept of
‘design fairness.’ The central idea of this philosophy is that golf
course operators should provide sets of tees from which golfers
with a wide spectrum of driving distances and swing speeds can
reach greens in regulation and putt for pars or even birdies.”

- excerpt from “Setting a Course up for Success” by the PGA of America

Example of an equitable breakdown of target teeing yardages based on swing speed
(source: ???)

“THE ISSUES” - BUNKERS

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Bunkers represent one of the highest maintenance costs on a golf course and are generally one of the more expensive
features to construct. They also have a shorter useful lifespan than most other features on a golf course. Thus, though we
did a fairly robust bunker renovation back in 2001, we are now seeing a host of issues that need to be addressed.

Beyond the obvious issues like poor sand, fried egg lies, and limited and difficult entry /exit points, the bunkers at Mount
Bruno are not of the original design intent in both style and placement, and are not built with the appropriate liner to support
the steep sand faces. The result is bunkers that washout and contaminate in heavy rain events, leading to inconsistencies in
sand depth and texture, and a need to be rebuilt more frequently due to rapidly degraded playability.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?

In order to address the above issues, the best solution is a complete redesign and renovation. In accordance with the vision
of the Course Planning Committee, we are proposing a return to a bunker style and strategy more reflective of the original
Willie Park Jr. design intent. This will consist of bunkers with flatter sand bottoms and grassy faces, as well as the conversion
of many bunkers to grassy hollows, pits, and other non-sand hazards seen across historic Willie Park Jr. courses.

Returning to this more traditional bunker style will not only be less maintenance intensive, its will also be more affordable
to build as they do not require very expensive liners, will resist the constant washouts and contamination of sand, and
will overall last much longer than our current bunker style. It will also improve playability, eliminating the downhill lies,
difficult entry / exit points, and contaminated sand that have plagued our current bunkers. Finally, the plan will give us the
opportunity to present a more varied strategy to our hazards while ensuring they are positioned according to modern driving
distances as well as historic design philosophies that are making a revival across the golf industry.

Bunker washout on Hole #1 due to liner failure on a steep face Contaminated sand in fairway bunkers on Hole #12

Example of inconsistent bunker character on Hole #14 Bunker washout on Hole #1 due to improper grading around the face

“THE ISSUES” - TURF SPECIES / GRASSING

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Most golfers have heard the terms “Poa” and “Bentgrass” but may not be entirely aware of what they are and how they
impact the golf course. Poa Annua (poa) and bentgrass are the main species of turf that make up the entirety of the short
grass surfaces (greens, tees, and fairways) at Mount Bruno. Both species can create excellent putting surfaces, but have very
different characteristics that determine how they are managed and what resources are required to manage them.

Poa is a native weed grass that which is shallow rooted and generally very weak. It does not tolerate the heat, cold (particularly
ice), or drought, and is much more susceptible to insect and disease pressures. It also produces seed heads at very low heights
of cut which negatively impacts the roll of the golf ball. Bentgrass on the other hand is a very deep-rooted, heat tolerant, and
winter hardy plant that has been bred and genetically selected for years to have the finest traits for putting quality as well
as drought tolerance, insect resistance, and disease tolerance. It requires less water and fewer chemical applications, and
overall eliminates much of the risk associated with Poa greens.

It is quite common for a golf course of Mount Bruno’s age to have a mixed stand of Poa and bentgrass, as the cultivars of
bentgrass, construction methods, and maintenance practices back then did not lend themselves to keeping the surfaces
pure. Many clubs across North America still have and maintain pure Poa or mixed bentgrass and poa greens; however, our
environment, particularly with our winters as well as our limited and dwindling access to certain chemicals as compared to
the United States, makes managing Poa a much larger risk.

Over the years, our Poa percentage has increased to a point where it makes up a significant amount of the playing surface,
and as such the Club has been forced to adjust its maintenance practices to keep the Poa alive or risk severely affecting the
quality of the playing surfaces. This has included increased water, fertilizer, and chemical usage, as well as the use of covers
in winter to limit ice damage, that have only served to increase the Poa populations to the demise of the bentgrass.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?

As the pressures of maintaining quality conditions on the increasing Poa surface add up, it has become clear that it is time
for a full conversion to the latest variety of bentgrass on all our tees, greens, and fairways. This will not only create better
playing conditions across the board, but will also significantly reduce our water, chemical, fertilizer, and winter-prep inputs,
creating significant maintenance savings moving forward. Additionally, the new stand of bentgrass will be more tolerant of
our changing climatic conditions, water & chemical use regulations, and disease pressures. This combination will greatly
improve the resilience and long-term sustainability of our playing surfaces.

Ice damage on Poa (front) versus bentgrass sod (back) on Hole #? Heat stressed Poa on Hole #? green

“THE ISSUES” - IRRIGATION SYSTEM

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

Often unseen and rarely spoken about, the irrigation system is easily the most important part of the golf course. Although
the current system was installed in 2001 with many of the components past their useful lifespan, we are fortunate that a
quality system was properly installed that will allow us to make good use of the majority of the existing infrastructure. The
underground piping is in good condition and, except for where it needs to be moved, can be reused. Many upgrades have
been made to the pumping station to keep it current, and although it will need replacement at some point, it appears to have
many good years of service left in it.

The control system, wiring, and sprinkler heads are the main areas in need of replacement. The advancement in these
components since 2001 is quite remarkable and offers the potential to achieve incredible efficiency and water savings
through innovations like single-head sprinkler control, which allows each head to run and be adjusted individually, as well as
to-the-second evapotranspiration-based watering that can greatly improve water use efficiency and precision.

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?

We are proposing upgrades to the control system, wiring, and sprinkler heads as described above in order to create a system
with greater precision and better efficiency that is needed in today’s sustainable climate. We will also be replacing and/or
repurposing other infrastructure such as piping, valves, and connectors as necessary based on the other proposed design
changes of the plan.

Current irrigation controller installed in 2001

Irrigation head issues on Hole #?? NEED ANOTHER PHOTO OF AN ISSUE!!

IMPACTS ON SUSTAINABILITY

Evaluation and identification of the major areas in need of improvement and how best to fix them resulted fairly common theme – the
golf course in its current state is ill prepared for the future. Whether that be in the longevity of our course features, our required inputs
of water, chemicals, and labor versus the evolving legislation from all three levels of government, the course’s resilience to our ever-
changing climate, or even the course’s ability to support all levels of golfer... long story short- we are NOT sustainable.

One of the biggest and most practical drivers of this project has been the potential to better our Club’s sustainability, and do so in a
way that provides us with a better golf experience in the process. The results of the site analysis and recommendations presented
by Andy and Trevor have all received unanimous support from the CPC and Board and will give us ample opportunity to improve our
environmental footprint, enhance our course conditions, reduce maintenance burdens, withstand climatic and regulatory pressures,
and continue to present the highest quality golf experience long into the future.

The following is a summary of some of the key sustainability improvements per the plan recommendations:

• Potential water savings of up to 15% across the course due • Reduction in time, labor, and energy spent on typical
to improved bentgrass turf efficiency and ability to facilitate bunker maintenance, as well as significant reduction in
to-the-second precision across our irrigation system. bunker repair efforts due to drainage and liner failures.

• Greater resilience in our playing surfaces including • Teeing and yardage options that accomodate play for all
heightened drought resistence, pest resistence, disease skill levels, helping to improve pace of play, welcoming new
resistence, and cold tolerance on our greens, tees, and golfers to the game, and enhancing overall enjoyment.
fairways.
• Long overdue renovations to all key course infrastructure,
• Reduction in required chemical and fertilizer applications, bringing all features to modern standards and positioning
which will save both in application labor / time, cost of the course for the next 25-35 years of play.
materials and labor, and be better for the environment.

Sustainability analysis between bentgrass and Poa

Typical life cycle of golf course features
(source: American Society of Golf Course Architects)

Root growth comparison of bentgrass (left) versus Poa (right)



HISTORICAL INSPIRATION

In conjunction with the site analysis, a complete historical analysis of the Willie Park Jr.’s original 1918 design of Mount Bruno Country Club
was accomplished. The outcome of this study allowed for the ongoing education of the original and current design, while documenting the
interesting and factual evolution of the course over the last century. It provided the framework for a sensible approach to understand the
current golf course, how its members play the course, and develop a future long-term strategy for a sustainable operation.
The forms of research included:

• Hand-drawn plans by the celebrated Canadian golf architect Stanley Thompson in 1924
• A n aerial photograph dated back to 1930
• G round photographs of the course throughout the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40’s.
• Investigation of existing golf course features found on site
The information provided herein has been used to inform us as we move into the planning phase for future improvements. More details
on our historical analysis can be found in our Original Design Documentaion booklet linked here.

Design evolution of Hole #11 green: Stanley Thompson survey (left), 1930 aerial (middle), and 1930 features on the current aerial (right)

Course aerial from the 1930’s

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Willie Park Jr.
Open Champion 1887 & 1889
• T he course was surveyed – and hand-drawn with hole numbers – by Stanley Thompson in Park Jr. (right) on site during
1924, and this drawing is very accurate the construction of Course #4

• T hompson made recommendations for modifications of the course in 1924, some of which at Olympia Fields
were implemented and appear to remain on the course today

• T he 1930’s aerial photo is the courses’ best record of the condition of the course relative to the
original Willie Park Jr. design, plus the adjustments made by Thompson

• P ark’s present-day design is intact and has been relatively unchanged - his distinctive green
design and his heroic (sometimes penal) design philosophy on locating hazards are present in
your course today

• A ll greens appear to be in their original location, except for a slight shifting of the 12th green

• The original greens were uncharacteristically large, and sometimes enormous – according to
the 1930’s aerial, greens ranged from +/- 6,800 SF (Hole #13) to over 13,000 SF (Hole #11, #15,
#17)

• The entrances to greens were generally left open, allowing for running shots; however, greens
#3, #4, #10, #11, and #16 were protected by sand bunkers, asking for a full or partial carry to
the green

• Golf architect Herbert Strong was responsible for moving the 12th green in 1931, as well as
other likely course modifications during the 1930s. Strong was Bruno’s superintendent in 1939.

• The bunker locations varied from penal to heroic design, varying the type of play required –
bunker locations emphasizing preferred angles of play, bunkers for “catch” errant shots, and
some forced carries over perpendicular hazards

• T he fairways were much wider, and many were void of large groves of trees – this emphasized
the grandeur of the site, and placed a focus on the bunker locations

• Each hole had one teeing ground, where only two yardages were shared (Men’s and Ladies’)

THOMPSON SURVEY (1924)

The historic course survey conducted by golf
architect Stanley Thompson in 1924 provided a very
accurate look at Willie Park Jr.’s original design for
Mount Bruno. The survey was conducted shortly
after the course was completed, with very few
changes having been made during those years.

A major part of the design inspiration for the
Master Plan came from this survey. By overlaying
the Thompson linework over the current aerial, and
cross-referencing it with the 1930’s aerial from the
previous page, we were able to get a great sense of
what had changed over the years.

What was immediately obvious on the plan (and
confirmed through our green scans) was that the
greens had shrunken significantly from the original
course design. We were also able to identify a
number of bunkers and contoured hazards from the
original strategy that were candidates for revival in
the proposed plan.

The figure to the right is an example of the historical
design analysis conducted using the Thompson survey.

The figure on the adjacent page shows the entire
Thompson survey overlaid on a recent course aerial.



HISTORIC COURSE PHOTOS

Aerial photo showing Holes #1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 & 18 Aerial photo with a close-up of Holes #10, 15 & 18

Photo of the club entry and Hole #18 green Photo showing mounding around Hole #15 Close-up shot of Hole #18 green

Photo of Hole #3 green shot in the late 1930’s Photo from Hole #14 tees shot in the early 1930’s

Photo overlooking Hole #17 green shot in 1938 Photo from Hole #13 tees showing the historic bunkering

W.P.J. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY Example of the trademark WPJ green pitch and contouring
Historic photo of a WPJ green complex- Hole #5 at Sunningdale GC
Willie Park Jr. is recognized as one the most respected individuals in
the entire sport and had quite an impact on golf course architecture Historic photo of a WPJ fairway- Hole #10 at Sunningdale GC
throughout North America. A two-time Open Champion, he is the first
be considered an official golf course architect. He designed courses
across Great Britain and North America, throughout both Canada and
the United States.

When speaking of Park, the most recognizable feature would be his
green design. His greens are varied from simple pitch to very dramatic
with bold contouring. In general terms, Park’s greens reflect his “table
top” style with stark slope from back to front, often times with square
corners at the front. When routing his courses, Park would look for
features, whether natural or created, specifically intended for locating
his greens. He was not afraid of building large greens, and many are
shaped square with strong “shoulder” features and ridges near the
back sides and along the edges. His complexes will meet at grade in the
front and then rise up to a variety of ridges or spines, creating intricate
and strategic sections throughout the surface. He was also known for
placing bunkers behind his greens as a penalty for aggressive play to a
back-pin location.

There is evidence of Park being very pragmatic throughout his designs,
especially in his early work. He was known to integrate large grassy
hollow-type features and drainage ditches into the strategy of the
course, and he would commonly build dunes-style hillocks reminiscent
of the linksland found in his home country Scotland on many of his
courses. Concerning his fairway design, he was quoted multiple times
as preferring “60-yard wide” fairways.

Grassy pits around Hole #15 Course routing with fescue area
green at Huntercombe GC integration at Meadowbrook CC

WPJ style bunkering on Hole Grassy pits and mounding on Hole
#9 at Meadowbrook CC #14 fairway at Huntercombe GC



THE MASTER PLAN

The Master Plan you are viewing today is the culmination of tremendous effort and countless hours by Andy Staples, the Board, and
the CPC. Our objective is simple: To enhance our Willie Park Jr. heritage, preserve our great culture, and instill sustainable practices to
ensure the highest-level of playing conditions attainable in our climate long into the future.

The following pages provide a summary of the Scope of Work Proposed, as well as select examples of hole-specific improvements that
provide a sense of the proposed design character. For the full hole-by-hole breakdown of the plan, click here.

PLAN HIGHLIGHTS • R e-grasses all fairways with improved Bentgrass that will greatly
improve playing conditions, and expands the fairways to restore
• E xpands all putting surfaces to their original extents, restoring the course’s original grand sense of scale.
lost pin locations and reviving much of the original WPJ character
that had been diminished over the years, and converts surfaces • Upgrades the entire Practice Facility including expanded tees,
to the latest variety of Bentgrass. new range targets, new chipping/putting greens, and a dedicated
wedge range.
• Renovates all course bunkers with a WPJ-inspired style, restoring
many lost original bunkers while adjusting positions, angles, and • I mplements a tree management plan to guide necessary tree
strategy to better reflect the modern game. removals to improve playability and turf quality while identifying
areas for new plantings based on the desired course character.
• C reates additional strategic features including mounding,
ditches, grassy pits, and contouring reflective of some of WPJ’s • Expands fescue plantings across the course, creating a unifying
greatest works. course character while reducing the total footprint of high-
maintenance turf.
• Adjusts the positions of the tees per “teeing equity” based on
swing speed calculations, improving playability and ensuring the • Improves course conditions across the board through enhanced
course plays fair for all skill levels. drainage on all fairways, bunkers, and greens.

• Re-routes the Back 9 to create a more cohesive layout and exciting
final stretch, with the new finishing hole taking advantage of
prime property and viewsheds.

SCOPE OF WORK PROPOSED 4. TIGHTEN ROUTING & CONNECTIVITY

1. RESTORE THE GREENS • Eliminate awkward series of connections between holes
– renumber the Back 9 to convert existing old #14 into
• Expand the green surfaces reflective of their the new #18 finishing hole looking directly towards the
original WPJ designs. clubhouse.

• Rebuild to a uniform sand-based drainage • Preserve the numbering and sequence on the Front 9 –
substructure . after careful study, we are convinced this routing makes
for a better pace of play and a more enjoyable round.
• Soften the slopes where appropriate to create
more interesting hole locations, a greater variety 5. INCREASE HAZARD VARIETY & STRATEGY
of set up, and healthier surfaces in spreading
traffic around a bigger area. • S implify bunker faces consistent with the classic look of
Willie Park Jr.
• Convert putting surfaces to Bentgrass.
• I ntentionally scatter hazards to provide more variety
2. BETTER GROWING CONDITIONS and options.

• Increase air movement and sunlight to enhance • Protrude leading bunker edges across the line of play,
conditions for Bentgrass while inhibiting growth and expand fairway on the far side to reward bold shots
for undesirable Poa annua. that make the carry.

• Key areas planned to undergo tree management • Introduce grassy berms, mounds, and pits for additional
to increase sunlight and improve spring green up. interest and strategy.

3. IMPROVE COURSE DRAINAGE 6. EXPAND SHORTGRASS OPTIONS

• Improved drainage = better turf conditions = • Introduce of more short grass (and drainage) around
firmer, faster playing surface = more accessible greens as an alternative to the pattern of bunker/steep
and playable course. grass to create more varied surfaces for recovery shots.

• Enhance surface flow and add subsurface pipe.

7. INCREASE TEE & YARDAGE VARIETY 10. UPGRADE THE PRACTICE FACILITY

• Lengthen the course from the back tees while • Enlarge the natural grass hitting area, and supplement with
creating more forward tees at distances that more the addition of an all-weather artificial turf tee line.
proportionately reflect the swing speeds (and skill
levels) of the players opting to use them. • Create a new short game area to simulate the course
conditions.
8. ENHANCE NATIVE AREAS
• A dd new wedge range targets for practice from 50-125 yards.
• Introduce/expand the palette of fescue grasses in
out-of-play areas to create a more interesting and QUICK COMPARISON
naturalistic environment.
EXISTING GREENS: PROPOSED GREENS:
• Create out-of-play areas that are aesthetically • 102,300 sq. ft. • 177,900 sq. ft.
pleasing while providing areas requiring less • 5,680 sq. ft. average • 9,880 sq. ft. average
intensive turf cultivation and improved habitat for
birds and mammals. EXISTING BUNKERS: PROPOSED BUNKERS:
• 77 total • 75 total
9. IMPROVE AIR MOVEMENT & VIEWSHEDS • 135,900 sq. ft. • 106,550 sq. ft.
• 1,760 sq. ft. average • 1,420 sq. ft. average
• Implement a strategic tree management plan,
raising the canopy across the site, establishing more EXISTING FAIRWAYS PROPOSED FAIRWAYS
native areas, and introducing more short grass. • 28.7 acres • 38.1 acres

• Significantly expand the view envelope across the EXISTING TEES PROPOSED TEES
site, creating a more windswept environment with • 49 total • 85 total
dramatically enhanced interior views that highlight • 71,200 sq. ft. • 110,100 sq. ft.
the beauty and shape of the existing ground • 1,425 sq. ft. average • 1,295 sq. ft. average
contours. • No forward tees • 18 new forward tees

EXISTING FESCUE PROPOSED FESCUE
• 16.4 acres • 25.2 acres

Proposed Details - Hole 4 I Hole 4 | Par 4

The changes proposed on #4 reflect both the H YARDAGES
restoration of the hole’s historic character G
while also adapting it to the modern game. The Blue 397
Blue tee is lengthened by roughly 20 yards to F White 357
add more strategy in shot placement into the Green 320
expanded fairway, and the remaining tees are E
shifted per our teeing equity calculations to D Red 283
ensure the strategy is similar for all skill levels. Forward 245
C Scoring 214
The first fairway bunker, which is near its
historic location, will be renovated in place B GREEN DETAIL
largely as a visual carry feature. The second A
bunker, however, will be shifted towards the 75’
green to improve the hole’s strategy based on
modern driving distance and ensure it is not 50’
disproportionately challenging the shorter 25’
hitter.
0’
Finally, you’ll see the green nearly double in
size, capturing the lost extends and reviving its 25’
WPJ strategy, while improving poorly draining
areas within the green surface. The bunkering 50’
will be adjusted to reflect this expansion, with
new shaping more in line with the historic 75’
layout.
50’ 25’ 0’ 25’ 50’
- Andy Staples, Golf Course Architect
SCALE: 1” = 50’ - 0”

Renovation Plan by Andy Staples
Scottsdale, Arizona USA

HOLE #4 Hole #4 - Existing

PROPOSED DESIGN

Proposed Details - Hole 8 Hole 8 | Par 3

As a shorter Par 3, the current #8 lacks strategy YARDAGES
and interest – a fairly straightforward carry to a
round green, guarded with shallow bunkers on Blue 203
the corners. White 181
Green 164
The proposed plan for this hole draws upon the
original Willie Park Jr. strategy while adding a Red 144
few touches to better tie into the surrounding Forward 126
viewshed. The green is expanded significantly
on the front left, restoring the interesting and Scoring 111
well-guarded front pin location. This also pulls
the raised grade of the green through the G GREEN DETAIL
approach at an angle, creating visual deception EF
across the front edge and emphasizing the 75’
strong roll-offs to the right. D
C 50’
The final touch is the restoration of the original
bunkering, adjusting the front left bunker to B 25’
accommodate the expanded green and adding
a centerline bunker set into the false front that A 0’
protects the green from running shots to the
putting surface. Trees behind the green are 25’
removed to expose a dramatic view and to
instill a grander sense of scale fitting with the 50’
visual surrounds.
75’
- Andy Staples, Golf Course Architect
50’ 25’ 0’ 25’ 50’

SCALE: 1” = 50’ - 0”

Renovation Plan by Andy Staples
Scottsdale, Arizona USA

HOLE #8 Hole #8 - Existing

PROPOSED DESIGN

Proposed Details - Hole 10 Hole 10 | Par 3

One of the iconic original holes of the course, YARDAGES
#10 has some of the best ground-level
documentation of its original design that we aim Blue 159
to revitalize. The main feature of the original White 153
hole was the two large bunkers defending Green 144
the front green edge with a prominent grassy
land “bridge” providing access to the putting Red 135
surface. Forward 115
Scoring 78
The proposed design would expand the green
back to its original extents, recovering a large GREEN DETAIL
section on the front right as well as lost pin
locations on the back left and right of the green. 75’
The front bunkers will be brought back to their
original extents, and those flanking the left and E 50’
right edges will be renovated to better reflect D
their historic character. The existing prominent 25’
landform behind the green will be exposed by C
the removal of trees, and offer views from the B 0’
tees into hole #11.
A 25’
Overall, this should be one of the most exciting
restorations on the property, and one I believe 50’
will set this iconic hole up to be one of the best
dropshot Par 3s in golf! 75’

- Andy Staples, Golf Course Architect 50’ 25’ 0’ 25’ 50’

SCALE: 1” = 50’ - 0”

Renovation Plan by Andy Staples
Scottsdale, Arizona USA

HOLE #10 Hole #10 - Existing

PROPOSED DESIGN

Proposed Details - Hole 14 FORMER HOLE #16

#14 (existing #16) has been severely bottled K Hole 14 | Par 4
in by tree plantings over the years that have J
reduced the strategic merit of the hole in favor YARDAGES
of a very regimented, “penal” strategy, with I
punishing bunkers on the dogleg corners and H Blue 415
only one favored angle into the green. White 365
G Green 330
In contrast, the original hole had one of the FE
widest fairways on the course and a much Red 284
larger, squared green that could be attacked D Forward 240
from various fairway positions depending of Scoring 208
the pin location. The proposed plan aims to C
bring back this strategy, expanding the green GREEN DETAIL
front back to the original extents and enlarging B
the fairway past the dogleg to allow for a 75’
variety of angles of attack. A
50’
The new design will also create a strategic
bunker layout that more fairly addresses the 25’
tee shot for all skill levels. The fairway bunkers
are repositioned to challenge modern distance 0’
along the inside edge of the dogleg, and the
greenside bunkers will reflect the original 25’
design. As a final touch, grass bunkers will
be added to serve as a historic callback while 50’
visually framing the modern landing area.
75’
- Andy Staples, Golf Course Architect
50’ 25’ 0’ 25’ 50’

SCALE: 1” = 50’ - 0”

Renovation Plan by Andy Staples
Scottsdale, Arizona USA

HOLE #14 (old 16) Hole #16 - Existing

PROPOSED DESIGN