Tensions are rising among Egan residents as questions continue to swirl around the future of the town’s historic one-lane bridge.
There is also growing concern that city officials may be committing fraud by proceeding with the initial phases of a replacement project they have no real intention of completing — reportedly to avoid paying fees already incurred for engineering work.
Earlier this year, Egan’s City Council secured a nearly $6 million federal grant to replace the 102-year-old bridge spanning the Big Sioux River. The grant application initially went unnoticed by most residents, leaving many feeling blindsided.
Packed City Council meetings led officials to place any decision about the bridge’s future on hold until all necessary engineering reports are returned, including an inspection report that has yet to be filed.
The bridge, a beloved landmark, has become the subject of an emotional debate. Nearly every resident who has spoken on the matter has questioned the necessity of replacing it.
Egan alum and current city property owner Harvey Donley continues to argue for preserving the structure — even if only for pedestrian use.

“What I know is I sat in on a packed room full of city residents who were very verbal about not wanting to proceed. The council told us they knew they had made a mistake and apologized for getting this far without public input. They went on to vote 4-1 on that May 15th, 2024 meeting to cease the Egan Bridge Project altogether. I would have never guessed that they would make the same mistake twice — that being to vote to move forward in any regards without facilitating a public dialog short of a note on the window putting the bridge back on the agenda,” Donley said of the current conversation regarding moving forward with Phase I of the project.
State officials recently requested the city either pay for engineering fees already incurred or move forward with the project.
At the last regular meeting of the Egan City Council, council member Michelle Ten Eyck motioned to pay the SDOT bill and abandon the project. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Another motion, introduced by Nancy Hansen and seconded by Jerome Olson, proposed proceeding with phase one of the project. It passed 4-1, with Ten Eyck being the only vote against it.
The move has drawn harsh criticism from residents like Carol and Mike Larson, who accuse the Council of moving forward with phase one purely to avoid paying the $11,806.42 currently owed — work that began without a signed contract.
Carol, per the city’s own notes on the meeting, called it a “fraud against the federal government.”
Donley agrees.
“I agree with Michelle Ten Eyck that the city should go ahead and bite the bullet and pay the incurred engineering fees and put this to rest,” said Donley. “I see them trying to move forward with the hopes of not having to pay the current $12K engineering bill, only to be stuck with a $70K engineering bill when the State figures out they have no intent on completing the project. If this is the kind of council we have representing us, I think it may be time to collect signatures and replace them.”
No final decision has been made regarding the bridge’s replacement. Engineers have cited structural deficiencies, including corroded floor beams and a dangerously thin concrete deck, as reasons it should no longer be used.
The city offered no additional comment on the matter. It has until 2027 to bid on the federally funded project, leaving time for further community input and deliberation.