Lake County’s current procurement record establishes a $1,070,286.13 award for contract 26-711, Britt Road Reconstruction. The July 2026 agenda packet describes about 260 feet of road, embankment, drainage, culvert, water-quality, pavement, marking, shoulder, and swale work associated with a Hurricane Milton washout.
The records reviewed do not establish that construction has started. They contain no notice to proceed, field-start date, current percent complete, amount paid, change-order ledger, substantial-completion record, final cost, or closeout.
A dated project ledger
| Record stage | Date or period | What the record establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined recovery report | July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025 | Britt Road was grouped with Wolf Branch and Round Lake projects under a $2.2 million program and a combined progress label | Percent complete or contract value for the later Britt-only award |
| Funding-agreement history | January 20, 2026 | The agenda packet says the Board approved a Local Agency Program agreement | Construction start or completion |
| Board award item | July 14, 2026 | Recommended award, exact funding components, district, scope, and bid history | Field mobilization, payments, or accepted work |
| Procurement award status | July 27, 2026 | Bid 26-711 is marked awarded for $1,070,286.13 | Notice to proceed or current construction status |
| Missing next records | After award | No reviewed record fills these fields | Start, progress, changes, payment, acceptance, and closeout remain unknown |
The final row matters. A complete procurement record can establish permission to contract without establishing physical progress.
What the 2026 scope includes
The July contract packet places the project in Lake County Commission District 4 and describes approximately 260 feet of Britt Road affected by the washout.
Its listed physical work includes:
- roadway and embankment reconstruction;
- drainage work and grading upstream and downstream;
- new 48-inch reinforced-concrete pipe culverts and inlets east toward Lake of the Woods;
- a baffle box for runoff water-quality treatment;
- restoration along the historic road alignment;
- base preparation and stabilization;
- asphalt and pavement markings; and
- shoulders and swales.
The solicitation record documents the procurement scope leading to the award. These are contracted elements, not a claim that each has been installed, inspected, or accepted.
The two funding entries reconcile exactly
The agenda packet records two sources for the award:
| Recorded funding | Amount | Calculated share of award |
|---|---|---|
| Grant | $744,224.87 | 69.5% |
| American Rescue Plan Act | $326,061.26 | 30.5% |
| Total award | $1,070,286.13 | 100.0% |
The dollar reconciliation is:
$744,224.87 + $326,061.26 = $1,070,286.13
The shares use each source amount divided by the exact award, then round to one decimal percentage point. Before rounding, the shares are about 69.5351 percent and 30.4649 percent.
This establishes how the recorded award is funded. It does not establish how much has been invoiced, reimbursed, paid, or finally charged to either source.
Why the older “more than 50%” label does not transfer
Lake County’s 2025 recovery report groups Britt Road, Wolf Branch Road, and Round Lake Road as project 49. It assigns the combined project a $2.2 million budget and a “Completed more than 50%” status for a period ending June 30, 2025.
The same entry combines different work. It discusses Britt pavement and stormwater needs alongside a hydrologic connection involving Wolf Branch Road, Round Lake Road, and Lake Amos.
The Britt-only construction award came in July 2026, more than a year after that reporting period ended. The earlier label therefore cannot establish that contract 26-711 is more than half complete. It may reflect planning, design, acquisition, or work across the combined program, but the reviewed text does not allocate the label among those components.
For the same reason, subtracting the $1,070,286.13 award from the older $2.2 million combined budget would not produce a defensible “remaining” balance. The units of analysis and dates differ.
Do not turn the 260-foot description into a unit price
Dividing the award by about 260 feet would produce a number, but not a useful road-only unit cost. The contract includes culverts, inlets, drainage, grading, a water-quality device, embankment, stabilization, markings, shoulders, and swales in addition to pavement.
Without a bid schedule that isolates comparable quantities, a per-foot ratio would imply a precision and comparability the reviewed records do not support.
The next records needed to report progress
To move beyond “awarded,” look for a project-specific record tied to contract 26-711 for each field:
- notice to proceed and contractual start date;
- public field-start or mobilization notice;
- current traffic or access notice;
- progress measurement and reporting date;
- approved change orders;
- pay applications and amount paid;
- updated schedule or time extensions;
- substantial completion;
- final acceptance and final cost; and
- closeout or warranty record.
No source reviewed on August 10, 2026 supplies those fields. Current road conditions and closures require a live County source rather than inference from the procurement page.
Procurement findings without contractor judgment
The agenda packet says seven responsive and responsible bids were received and the award recommendation went to the lowest bidder. The live procurement page confirms the award status and amount.
This article omits the contractor’s name because evaluating or promoting the firm is unnecessary to answer the public-record question. The bid result does not establish workmanship, schedule performance, safety outcomes, or future project success.
Method and limitations
Local Service Ledger reviewed four Lake County records on August 10, 2026. We separated the combined 2025 recovery program from the 2026 Britt-only contract, reconciled the two recorded funding components, calculated their shares, and inventoried missing progress and closeout evidence.
We did not inspect the road, obtain unpublished contract administration records, interview officials or residents, verify traffic conditions, or assess engineering performance. The article is intentionally text-only because its original value is the record reconciliation.