SPRING VALLEY — Residents packed the Spring Valley Community Center for a public hearing with the village board regarding next steps on the Glade Avenue bridge July 21. A new “middle-ground” option was presented, which was supported by both the majority of residents and board members who spoke at the meeting. The board will make an official decision in August.

During its recent annual inspection, the bridge was deemed no longer safe to drive on, resulting in its closure. That sped up the village’s process of deciding on what to do with the bridge.

The village presented three options at the public hearing. The first option would be putting in a retaining wall with a culvert underneath, partial fill and a road. The cost for the option is estimated at $782,700 overall, with a village cost of $502,050 after factoring in grant funding. Option two was presented for the first time at the hearing. The option would be a slope fill replacement of the bridge that would be less costly at $543,440 with $262,680 in village costs. Lastly, the option for bridge removal is still on the table, costing $141,930 without the option for grant funding.

“I’m hoping these numbers are conservatively high,” Cedar Corporation Municipal Engineer Greg Adams said.

The retaining wall option would result in an approximate tax increase of $221 per $347,000 of fair market value, coming in at $116 for the slope fill option and $63 for the bridge removal option.

“This is assuming that we’re going to have to borrow to pay for it, because there is not enough in the budget,” Village Administrator Luann Emerson said.

The retaining wall and slope fill options factor in the cost of a water main replacement which is projected to be $119,000. Adams said the water main should be replaced in the next few years regardless and will be simplest to complete when replacing the bridge. Tacking on the $119,000 to the bridge removal option, the cost would be estimated at $260,930, within $2,000 of the slope fill option.

“That would be to put in new piping from the south to north side of the road,” Adams said. “One advantage of the slope fill option is it would be in an area that the village could get at that is also much easier.”

Adams said the slope fill option is lower maintenance than the retaining wall option because of the retaining wall’s concrete walls.

Two of the primary concerns expressed by residents in the Glade Avenue area are driving in the winter with tight corners and a tall slope up the hill and the ability of emergency services to climb the hill without the more gradual climb that the bridge provides.

James Hulbert of Upper Glade Avenue said many people fear driving on the Glade Avenue hillside. Hulbert compared the Glade bridge to the Eau Galle Road bridge constructed a few years ago.

“People in that neighborhood didn’t really need that bridge. They’ve got several access points from that neighborhood to Highway 29. I parked there today and I counted cars. Most of the cars did not go across the bridge,” Hulbert said. “The Glade Avenue bridge has served many people for over a century. Generations have depended on it for access to their property.”

“For me, it’s the emergency response, but it’s also just a safety thing for people that live on Upper Glade. Everybody just keeps calling it a shortcut. That’s true for some people that live farther up the hill,” Upper Glade resident Logan Fisher said. “For at least the five people on Upper Glade, it’s not really a shortcut it’s the main way up.”

Fisher said the alternative is an extremely steep road that is dangerous in the winter for Upper Glade and Oak Street residents.

“If Upper Glade, for me, is unpassable in the winter, am I supposed to go past my house again after I’ve already went past it once to go around and then make a 330-degree angle turn where the road is 28 feet wide,” Fisher said.

Fisher said even the bridge route can be dangerous in the winter, and without the bridge it only gets worse.

The slope fill option does require a commitment from adjacent landowners to reconstruct a chunk of their property. Multiple nearby property owners spoke up at the hearing and said they would be willing to donate their land to make the slope fill option happen.

Mary Nelson of Oak Street asked the village to reopen the bridge in the meantime for non-truck traffic.
“We all have an issue of getting home in the wintertime. I’m not going to stay home all winter,” Nelson said. “The only safe way to get up that hill in the wintertime is coming up Third Street, crossing the Glade Avenue bridge.”

Nelson said if the inspectors clear the bridge for smaller vehicle traffic, the village should open it to non-trucks one at a time to benefit residents.

“I’ve sat at these meetings and heard people pit one side of the town against the other. We’re in this all together. This is a safety issue. This should be a no-brainer,” Board Trustee Matt Huepfel said. “I am appalled and embarrassed about what has happened here. We are not going to endanger people’s lives as long as I have anything to do with it.”

“I’m really sad because you all think we want to take the bridge out,” Board Trustee Liz Erickson said. “That’s not the case. It’s what’s going to be the best way to do this.”

Huepfel said at a previous Public Works meeting there were talks about spending funds on other street projects rather than replacing the bridge, and that he is fully against that idea.

At the hearing, multiple board members and the majority of the public spoke in favor of the slope fill option that was presented for the first time. An official decision will come at the Aug. 5 meeting. The board is also expected to explore temporary options for safe travel during reconstruction at that August meeting. Adams said if the village goes to bid this winter, the reconstruction work would be done in early fall 2027.