Residents complain of bridge delays and pile-driving noise; town to publish weekly bridge updates and pursue lighting change order

Multiple residents raised concerns at the Feb. 11 Town of Lake Clarke Shores meeting about the Pine Tree bridge project’s pace and the construction impacts on traffic and neighborhood roads.

Resident Tim Daughtry said he observes “a pronounced lack of staffing” and said the contractor appears to be getting farther behind, recounting that residents were first told the work would take “3 month[s], then 6 month[s]” and now appear to be facing a longer schedule. Daughtry said the delays are “a terrible inconvenience for people at the head of the lake.”

Why it matters: The bridge closure affects traffic patterns, increases volumes on alternate routes and has escalated resident concern about timelines, noise and downstream road‑repair scheduling.

Town response and project details: - Schedule: Town staff and the mayor clarified the original contract is a 310‑day schedule; a town official referenced an original completion date tied to that term and said recent checks show the contractor remains ahead of certain milestones. At the meeting Mayor Gregory Freebould said the contract’s calendar points to an August 8 end date but council was being told the project is “looking at, right now, July,” which the manager said would be ahead of contract schedule. - Upcoming work and noise: Town staff warned residents that utility relocation is complete and that pile driving for structural work will begin next week; staff said the work will be “very loud” and recommended residents expect at least two weeks of intense noise during piling operations. - Communications: After resident comments, the council directed staff and the town’s communications consultant to publish a weekly bridge update by email; Mayor Freebould requested that posts include photos and short video clips of workers and equipment to show progress. - Bridge lighting and CRA funding: Town staff said there are four proposed light poles for the bridge and that staff recommended asking the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to pay 50% of the cost for two poles because they will illuminate adjacent park areas; staff said that would likely be handled as a change order to the contract and will be presented to council with pricing options.

Resident context: The transcript contains recurring resident references to varying schedule estimates — “3 months,” “6 months,” and later “9 or 10 months” — reflecting public frustration and differing impressions of contractor staffing and daily progress.

Next steps: Staff will publish the weekly bridge update and add a frequently asked questions section to the bridge web page. The town will present light‑pole options and a proposed change order for council consideration, and staff will continue to monitor contractor progress and provide updates.

Ending: The council emphasized that the contract places financial incentives and penalties on the contractor and noted project milestones; the meeting record shows residents remain concerned about delays and short‑term impacts.