Lake Forest officials favor keeping Lakewood Vine bridge design and move toward 2026 construction

City staff told the Lake Forest City Council on June 16 that the 100‑year‑old Lakewood Vine bridge needs full replacement, new state grant funding has reduced the city's share and staff recommends proceeding with the current precast spandrel‑arch design to allow construction to begin in 2026.

The recommendation matters because the bridge is on an annual inspection cycle and engineers told staff the structure’s condition is worsening; another year with a new distress could force load restrictions, temporary shoring or closure. The city has secured additional state funds that raise total available grant assistance to $3,680,000, lowering the local share and making the 2026 schedule feasible if the council directs staff to proceed.

Public Works/engineering staff member Byron summarized options developed after an August bid came in about $1.7 million over budget. Option 1 keeps the current precast spandrel‑arch design and, with the new grant money, would allow the city to get on IDOT’s September letting and begin construction in January 2026. Option 2 would redesign the structure as a cast‑in‑place spandrel arch, which could lower estimated construction cost modestly but would likely push construction to 2027 or 2028 because the redesign would reenter IDOT review and possibly the State Historic Preservation Office review.

Byron said the August low bid with contingency had been about $4.355 million; updated conservative estimates place a precast bid, including a 10% contingency, near $5.0 million. With the newly identified state funding, Byron said the city’s local funding need would fall to about $1.3 million under current estimates. He cautioned the estimates are subject to market volatility and that delaying the project could erase any modest savings from a redesign.

Council members emphasized risk and timing. Alderman Walther and Alderman Novot said they preferred the staff recommendation to proceed with the existing design to reduce schedule and approval risk and to avoid letting the bridge’s condition deteriorate further. Alderman Powers asked whether delaying would put the grants at risk; Byron said state grants are typically associated with multi‑year budget windows and the money would not be at immediate risk from a one‑ or two‑year change in schedule. Public Works staff noted McLennan Reed bridge—nearby and budgeted separately—was previously discussed for concurrent work but is a distinct rehabilitation project with different scope and timing.

No formal council vote was taken. Staff will return with required IDOT funding agreements and contract steps once the council provides direction. Byron said the next administrative steps, if the council directs staff to proceed, include securing the IDOT letting schedule and reporting back to council for final approvals.

Council members and staff framed the choice as tradeoffs between cost uncertainty and construction timing. Several members said they preferred Option 1, the existing precast design, to reduce review risk, start construction sooner and limit further deterioration of the bridge.