The City Council voted 5–1 on May 13 to continue feasibility and preliminary design work for a proposed pedestrian bridge along SR 516, directing staff to use remaining grant funds for further analysis and up to a roughly 15% level of design while stopping short of a construction commitment.

Delaney, the project presenter, reviewed alternatives developed with consultant Koei: ramped bridge approaches would require more parking and larger footprints; elevator approaches reduce surface impacts but raised safety and maintenance concerns. Presentations showed a range of “condensed” ramp and elevator footprints that trade parking stalls, driveway reconfigurations and visibility of storefronts.

Property owners in the downtown commercial block communicated concerns about losing parking. Delaney said the most condensed elevator option would impact as few as one stall on the north side and a couple stalls on the south side but acknowledged it could turn a driveway into a right-in-only configuration and change circulation. She also said elevator cabs would be 6-by-10 feet in the designs shown and that stair widths and building clearances constrain how small the shafts can be made.

Council debate focused on safety of elevators, likely vandalism and maintenance needs, the needs of seniors who prefer ramps, and the effect on business parking. Several council members said elevators could attract illicit activity and be expensive to maintain; others noted that ramps take more parking and may be unusable for mobility-limited seniors. Delaney warned that locking elevators to limit hours could pose ADA problems if stair access is closed at the same times.

After deliberation council majority favored continuing the study rather than returning grant funds immediately. Staff estimated the consultant contract and grants budget were roughly $759,000 overall and that the project is “about 60% of the way through” that budget; using what remains would allow the team to reach a 15% design level or to collect more targeted data on parking occupancy and driveway circulation to support future grant applications. One council member argued the bridge was not feasible in the near term and urged returning the grant funds; others urged further study on mitigations such as cameras, different circulation patterns and safety measures.

Council recorded the direction to use remaining funds for additional predesign/feasibility work while not committing to construction. Delaney confirmed the consultant is paid as work is completed; staff said returning unused funds is an option but could make future grant applications more difficult.

Why it matters: the pedestrian bridge is part of a longer-term downtown mobility and placemaking discussion. The council majority endorsed further study to preserve design options and collect data, while stopping short of authorizing construction or additional permanent impacts to parking until safety and circulation questions are resolved.

The council's recorded intent at the meeting: proceed with additional feasibility/predesign work using remaining grant funds (to an estimated 15% design), collect additional usage and circulation data, and avoid further reductions in parking without clearer mitigation and buy-in from businesses and users. The meeting transcript recorded a 5–1 council vote supporting continuing the study.