SANDPOINT — In a chaotic meeting, the City Council voted 4-2 against a land use agreement with Bridge Street LLC, canceling the planned sidewalk expansion on Bridge Street.

The council previously approved the project 5-1 on Nov. 19 as part of the consent calendar and was set to begin on Dec. 1.  The landowner, Bridge Street LLC, later asked for a land use agreement, which would allow the city contracted crew to access the property at the edge of the street. 

As a part of the agreement, the city would have committed to maintaining access to Gunning's Alley from the north, which was the primary driver of division between the council. Councilor Kyle Schreiber said he felt the developer was asking for too much after not fulfilling contractual obligations to complete the sidewalk and other improvements from the 2020 land swap, instead paying a security bond. 

“We're talking about this one contract. And do we assign permanent vehicular access to that property?” Schreiber said. "We don't need to let someone else tell us what we can do with our property. We can allow public access in perpetuity, if we choose to, but if we sign this agreement tonight that option is gone.” 

Councilor Joel Aispuro and Council President Deb Ruehle were the only two votes in favor of the project, citing financial responsibility and a need for a safer sidewalk in that area. Ruehle said she felt the councilors were “living in the future” and that the south access to Gunning's Alley is not functional. 

“We'll be spending a lot more time not having a safe sidewalk going to City Beach, and I just see it's a safety issue for me,” Ruehle said. “The city is always going to need to have vehicular access [to the alley]. So, I don't feel like [we are] being bound to that; we're not deeding any property for vehicular access. We're simply saying we're going to maintain that.” 

The project was planned to use a security bond provided by Bridge Street LLC to expand the current 6-foot sidewalk to 12 feet. Without the land use agreement, the project was canceled, leaving the city on the hook for paying Big Sky ID Corp, which cleared its schedule and was waiting to begin construction on the project. 

The money to pay Big Sky ID Corp will come out of the city’s general fund, according to Public Works Director Holly Ellis. During deliberation, Ruehle said the number owed to the contractor will be a “large sum” although councilors and Mayor Jeremy Grimm avoided giving a specific amount. 

“We are effectively using general fund dollars for a 4-foot sidewalk,” Grimm said following the meeting. 

Schreiber proposed several ideas for the sidewalk expansion, including lumping the project into the forthcoming Downtown Revitalization Phase No. 3 or widening the sidewalk into the street. Councilor Pam Duquette said she liked the idea of including the work in the third phase or making the sidewalk a bulb out into the street. 

“We have no guarantee that the hole is going to be filled through all of this,” Duquette said. “Kyle's idea about using the phase three funding for that you could put the sidewalk in with that is what I thought we had talked about or had been brought up. I don't think [Bridge Street LLC] negotiated in good faith at all.” 

Ruehle said she was opposed to that idea because it would leave the small and unsafe sidewalk, which is the only pedestrian access to City Beach, in place for another summer. 

Duquette also raised the question of reversing the land swap, in which the city traded the south access to Gunning’s Alley to Bridge Street LLC for the sidewalk. Fonda Jovick, the city attorney, said there was nothing in the land swap that would allow the city to forcibly undo it and that any reversing would need to be a mutual agreement between the two parties. 

“This isn't a service contract, like somebody failed to perform or they didn't clean your carpet in a timely manner,” Jovick said. “This contract has property rights implications. There's no mechanism under this contract, absent mutual agreement by both parties that we could force the developer to deed land back to the city.” 

Councilor Joshua Torrez asked if Bridge Street LLC had made a timeline for construction known to the city, which Grimm said they had not, and no building permits have been submitted.  

The entire discussion can be viewed on the city’s YouTube channel at youtube.com/@CityofSandpoint. The City Council’s next scheduled meeting is Jan. 21 at 5:30 p.m. at Sandpoint City Hall.