City task force presents four reuse options for Lester Park property, ranging from private mixed‑use to low‑cost golf restart

A mayor‑appointed working group delivered to the Duluth City Council a four‑option summary for reuse of the city‑owned Lester Park golf course and adjacent parcels, emphasizing that each option would require significant public or private investment and further public planning.

The working group, chaired by Tim Meyer, presented a private mixed‑use “centerboard” plan that envisions a hotel, restaurants, shops, conference space and about 450 housing units; an inclusive nonprofit golf model led by Barrier Free Golf and COGS focused on golfers with disabilities; a low‑cost, quick‑start golf reopening designed to be multi‑use and flexible; and a private developer proposal by Tom Sonneborg. "What you'll hear is three different possibilities have developed and been explored, all of which require a relatively, you know, fairly substantial public or private financial investment," Meyer said.

Why it matters: the property sits at the intersection of recreation, neighborhood open space and potential housing and economic development in eastern Duluth. Councilors and community members framed the choice as balancing neighborhood scale and character with potential tax revenue, housing production and connectivity to regional trails.

Key points from the presentation and council discussion

- Centerboard (private mixed‑use) plan: The steering committee described this as the most transformative option. It would use roughly 75 acres for housing (the presenter noted an additional 37‑acre parcel is controlled by a private party) and could include nearly 450 housing units, a hotel and commercial uses. The group estimated potential annual tax revenue “over $10,000,000” but flagged concerns about scale, neighborhood fit, environmental impacts and timeline; the plan would likely proceed in multiple phases, the committee said.

- COGS / Barrier Free Golf nonprofit plan: Presented as a smaller‑scale, nonprofit‑led option, the group said the partners aimed to raise capital—Barrier Free Golf estimated fundraising targets in the low‑to‑mid‑millions (the presentation cited a figure of about $13,000,000 connected to national golf organizations). Pros included inclusivity and lower neighborhood impact; cons included limited tax revenue and no built‑in housing component unless added later.

- Low‑cost, multi‑use restart (Liberty plan): Designed to return golf operations quickly while allowing the site to evolve over time, this option emphasizes shared equipment, volunteer governance, and multiple recreational uses (tennis, disc golf, cross‑country skiing, trails). The group said the initial restart could begin sooner than the large private plan but that fully realizing long‑term goals could take a decade or more.

- Private developer proposals and land control: Sonneborg’s plan (described to the committee) initially sought a large acreage purchase; the steering group reported the developer has been open to compromise and, according to Meyer, some developers are willing to consider long‑term lease structures rather than outright sale. Meyer said the city would likely need first‑right‑of‑refusal language in any land sale or long‑term lease.

Councilors asked about next steps, staff involvement, utilities, and any public or regulatory approvals that would be required. Meyer and mayoral staff said the administration expects a public and iterative master‑planning process that would involve Parks and Recreation, Planning, Housing (HRA), and the City Council. HRA director Jill Keppers offered to assist with housing master‑planning for portions of the site, the presentation said.

Public and committee voices

Tim Meyer credited more than two dozen steering‑committee members and more than 150 volunteers who participated in subcommittees on finance, legal, environment, recreation and housing. Committee leads named in the presentation included Bill Olson (golf), Ansel Schimpf (recreation), Hansi Johnson (recreation), Carol Friess (environment), John Lewis (finance) and Robert Heller (legal). Several councilors and audience members urged that any process protect neighborhood character and provide robust, early community engagement.

What’s next: Meyer and staff told council members they will provide more detailed committee reports on request and that each interested committee could present its full plan to the council and staff for additional review. The council did not take a formal vote on a preferred option at the meeting.

Ending: Councilors signaled support for a public planning process and more detailed analysis of infrastructure, environmental impacts, and funding options before committing to land sale, lease, or a specific redevelopment path.