Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Street Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses Bridge Street retaining‑wall award to seek developer talks, then schedules short follow‑up
Summary
City staff presented plans to replace a sheet‑pile wall on Bridge Street to restore a 12‑foot sidewalk; after debate about a related land swap and developer access to Gunning’s Alley, council voted to pause contract award briefly to let planning staff re-engage the property owner.
Public Works staff asked the council to approve a contract to construct a concrete‑masonry retaining wall on Bridge Street to restore a roughly 12‑foot sidewalk and improve ADA access. The project would remove existing sheet piling, give pedestrians more room, and use posted developer cash (performance funds) supplemented with a modest amount of resort‑city sidewalk funding.
Eric Busch, project manager, said the work is more complicated than standard sidewalk repair because the existing sheet‑pile wall encroaches into city right of way. He said construction would begin in December if awarded and be substantially complete by spring, weather permitting. The city’s current cash bond for that site would fund the majority of the work; staff estimated an approximately $385,000 construction contract with a potential city contribution of up to $60,000 from resort‑city tax funds.
Several council members and planning staff urged caution because the site is tied to a prior land swap and the long‑delayed redevelopment of an adjacent parcel. Jason Welker (planning) told council that reversing or renegotiating the land swap might restore access (vehicular and service) to Gunning’s Alley and change what improvements the city should do. He said planning staff intended to hold a prompt pre‑application discussion with the developer to explore whether restoring access could be a feasible win‑win and that premature construction might later require undoing city work.
Council considered postponing the contract until the downtown revitalization outreach is completed (a motion to do so failed) but later approved a motion to pause the contract award for a short, defined period (two weeks in the record) while planning staff attempts a follow‑up with the property owner. Staff warned that extended delays could raise construction costs and risk losing the current mobilization window, but two weeks was judged unlikely to derail the winter work window.
The pause gives planning staff a narrow window to re‑open dialogue with the developer about access and whether the developer will commit to restoring the city’s desired easement or otherwise address connectivity. Council asked staff to report back with results and possible legal or procurement implications before final award.
