Sandpoint council rejects Bridge Street land-use agreement after heated debate over sidewalk, access and developer bond

The Sandpoint City Council voted down a proposed land-use agreement with Bridge Street LLC on Jan. 17 that would have authorized contractor access to private property to build a sidewalk and committed the city to preserving vehicular access in Gunning's Alley. The motion failed on a roll-call vote after more than an hour of questioning and debate.

Council members and staff said the city faces a choice between using a developer-funded performance bond to complete an overdue sidewalk project or canceling the construction contract and pursuing other, potentially costlier options. Holly Ellis, Sandpoint’s public works director, told the council that “Bridge Street LLC posted $385,000 in a performance bond,” and that bond was expected to cover roughly 90% of the sidewalk work; she added the city has spent about $60,000 on engineering so far and that a contractor (Big Sky) had cleared a schedule to begin work.

Supporters of the agreement, including Council President Deb Rule, emphasized pedestrian safety on Bridge Street and the cost of canceling contracts. Rule argued that the project would address “a very hazardous sidewalk” in a heavily used corridor to City Beach and that abandoning the current contract would expose taxpayers to delay and mobilization charges. She moved to approve the agreement and authorize the mayor to execute it.

Opponents urged more leverage and renegotiation with the developer. Councilor Kyle Schreiber and others said the 2020 land swap that created the current obligations has not delivered the promised benefits and argued the council should not lock in additional commitments to a developer who has yet to build. Schreiber warned that approving the city commitment would reduce negotiating leverage and could amount to giving away public value in exchange for uncertain developer performance.

Public commenters raised related concerns. Jennifer Ekstrom of the Idaho Conservation League urged the council to retain the city’s rights to a shoreline-adjacent parcel, saying vacating those rights could make future stormwater treatment “more difficult to engineer and implement and also much more costly to implement.” Resident Terry Pardini told the council he was confused by prior agreements and warned of the potential loss of roughly 25 public parking spaces in the block.

Staff described the technical challenges: the original land swap assumed a developer-built structure would serve as a retaining wall; because the developer did not build, the city must consider building a wall and backfilling a gap to create safe sidewalk access. Ellis said the bond “is expected to cover 90% of the project” but that final costs would depend on the contractor’s final invoice. She also said that if the city cancels the construction contract and delays work, mobilization and delay fees charged by the contractor would be paid from the general fund.

After debate, the roll-call vote on the motion to approve the proposed land-use agreement and authorize the mayor to execute it recorded the following positions: Councilor Schreiber — No; Councilor Duquette — No; Councilor Tate — No; Councilor Torres — No; Councilor Spiro (Espiro) — Yes; Councilor Ruhl — Yes. Mayor Jeremy Grama announced the motion fails and the city will not proceed under the proposed agreement as written.

Next steps were not finalized on the record; councilors discussed options including returning to the negotiation table, widening the sidewalk toward the street as part of planned downtown revitalization work, or exploring other funding sources. Council members also noted continued obligations for fire access and underground infrastructure in the area that will limit how the site can be reconfigured. The council adjourned at 8:04 p.m.

The council discussion is likely to return to the agenda in coming weeks as staff and councilors weigh whether to renegotiate the 2020 swap, adjust design work for the sidewalk as part of Phase 3 downtown revitalization, or accept the additional city cost of proceeding without the developer agreement.