Council debates study of Leavenworth golf-course reuse; no decision to proceed

At its May study session the Leavenworth City Council heard a contentious, hour-long debate over whether to study repurposing the city-owned golf course for housing or other public benefits.

Kurt Peterson, speaking for the Housing Advisory Committee, framed the item as an exploratory request and emphasized there is no plan or proposal: “There is no plan, there is no formal proposal,” he told the council, and the committee’s ask was limited to permission to return with a recommended public-engagement process and a set of questions to study. Peterson noted the current lease on the golf course runs through 2034 and said any inquiry would focus on process and community input, not immediate operational changes.

Representatives of the Leavenworth Golf Club opposed redevelopment. John Brown, introduced himself as a resident and club member and warned that “big ideas can sometimes be bad ideas,” detailing the club’s long history and arguing the course functions as a public recreational amenity that supports local tourism and community programs.

Club representatives also outlined legal, environmental and fiscal hurdles. Presenters said the site is designated public recreation in the comprehensive plan and that housing is not a permitted use; converting the property would therefore require a comprehensive-plan amendment, likely SEPA review and an alternatives analysis. “To change that to housing…you will have to show that it is necessary,” a presenter said, flagging the extensive process such a change would trigger.

The club’s feasibility numbers — presented as illustrative rather than definitive — stressed uncertainty and potential costs: the site was described as roughly 100–104 acres; improvements were estimated at about $15–20 million in sunk value to the city; course revenue was cited near $1.26 million annually and visitor-related economic activity was estimated in the millions. A club speaker also warned of possible hidden liabilities on the parcel and estimated initial studies and remediation could run into the low millions, with larger full-development costs running much higher.

Council reaction divided. Some members called the idea a distraction and urged pursuing lower-conflict, lower-cost housing options first; others argued the council has a duty to consider all options for city-owned assets and recommended a deliberate public process to test the community’s appetite. Several councilors proposed a preliminary, low-cost step such as a community poll to gauge public interest before committing to expensive environmental and planning studies.

Outcome: the chair summarized that there was not sufficient support to move the golf-course concept forward now. The council agreed to set the proposal aside for the moment, continue exploring other housing tools and keep the idea in reserve; no vote or formal referral for a redevelopment study was authorized.

Next steps: no studies were commissioned. Councilors asked staff and advisory committees to continue work on other housing proposals and suggested, as a lower-cost next step, polling or broader public outreach if the council later decides to revisit the golf-course concept.