Riverview consultants present feasibility study to convert golf course into housing, lakes to cap landfill

Riverview officials on the council agenda reviewed a feasibility study from the Bonner Advisory Group that explores shrinking the existing golf course to a nine‑hole layout and redeveloping surrounding acreage for residential use while excavating lakes to obtain material to cap a closed landfill.

Luke Bonner of the Bonner Advisory Group said the presentation is a preliminary pre‑development study intended to test markets, concept layouts and the viability of combining a reconfigured golf course with new homes. "So again, I just want to reiterate that this is a feasibility study," Bonner said, emphasizing that the concepts shown are options for discussion rather than a final municipal decision.

The team laid out four conceptual layouts (plans A–D) that trade off lake and wetland acreage against housing yield. Plan A was presented as a buffer‑first option (about 24.4 acres of lake, ~4.2 acres of new wetland and ~89 acres for residential). Plan B integrates holes into the residential fabric (~28.9 acres lake, ~9.9 acres wetland, ~73–74 acres residential). Plan C keeps golf along the neighborhood edge (~28.4 lake, ~7 wetland, ~81 residential). Plan D pursues maximum residential acreage (~25.7 lake, ~2.3 wetland, ~98.6 residential).

Bonner summarized three density scenarios for the preferred option: a low‑density scenario at roughly 300 units, a mid‑density scenario near 383 units, and a high‑density scenario near 403 units (with the high scenario showing up to 198 townhome units and other product mixes). The team recommended product types suited to the market — estate single‑family, cottage lots, two‑story townhomes and single‑story ranch condos — and showed proposed connectivity (two pedestrian/bike links to the existing Riverview Forest neighborhood and a 60‑foot green buffer between new and existing homes).

From a finance perspective, the presenters ran high‑level revenue and cost models. Total project cost estimates ranged from about $150 million (low) to roughly $173 million (high) across the scenarios, and the preliminary net modeling showed shortfalls (presenters estimated a need to recover roughly $17.8M–$22M of site/development costs to meet a typical developer return). Bonner flagged tax increment financing (TIF) as a possible mechanism to borrow against future property‑tax capture. "At the end of 10 years we modeled a year‑10 capture of about $3.6 million and a cumulative capture across 10 years of roughly $15.16 million," the consultant said; he also cited a roughly $90 million 30‑year TIF capture as a high‑level projection.

Jennifer from Techratec addressed landfill‑closure engineering and soil requirements. She said the closed landfill requires a four‑foot final cover across about 155 acres and the team estimates approximately 700,000 cubic yards of soil will be needed to complete the final cover. Purchasing and hauling that volume from off‑site, she said, could cost roughly $9 per cubic yard (about $6.3 million); moving material from the golf‑course side on site would be far less expensive — roughly $2.50–$3.50 per cubic yard (on the order of $2.5 million by the team's rough estimates) — and would save time.

On timing, Chris, the golf‑course designer, said typical sequencing requires a year of planning followed by a year of construction to build and grow the golf turf (grow‑in work is seasonally constrained, with the planting window through early September). Bonner added the full residential development timeline is longer: he estimated about four years to complete planning and land development activities and begin delivering homes (the presenters suggested homes could start to be delivered in 2030 under the model offered), with full build‑out taking several additional years.

Councilors and staff asked questions about wetlands, the need for wetland mitigation, neighborhood buffers, potential impacts on streets and municipal services, and whether retail or small mixed‑use nodes had been considered (the team said wetlands/floodplain limits made on‑site retail impractical). The presenters advised that a carefully negotiated public–private partnership would be preferable to a simple land sale.

Several councilors discussed next steps. One councilor suggested the logical procedural step would be a public referendum if the city were to sell any golf property or change the course’s use; the consultant said, if the council chose to test voter support, November would be a feasible ballot date provided sufficient public education and follow‑up work (detailed RFPs, mitigation studies and refined financials) are completed beforehand.

During public comment, Jared Vaughn of Brentwood Drive urged the council to prioritize single‑family homes over multifamily units, calling single‑family product the best long‑term fit for Riverview and for younger families seeking to buy.

The presentation concluded with no formal council action taken; staff and the consultants said they would deliver a written report and that any next steps (RFPs, formal votes, mitigation studies or a ballot question) would be determined later by the council. The meeting proceeded to other agenda items including acceptance of the Planning Commission's 2025 annual report and a finance briefing on proposed millage rates.