Council hears sharp cost increase for Holly–River Park roundabout as county seeks transfer of Holly Boulevard

City staff briefed the council on a developer-driven roundabout planned at Holly and River Park Avenue and on a county proposal to transfer ownership and maintenance of Holly Boulevard, including the bridge over the Big Sue River. The council was told the roundabout cost estimate has climbed substantially during design and utility coordination.

Staff said the project’s original one-lane rural asphalt estimate was “about two and a half,” and that adding a second southbound lane to accommodate access for the Fairway development raised the asphalt estimate to about $2.9 million. Design consultants and contractors recommended concrete for durability, which pushed the estimate into the $3.1 million range. Recent utility-relocation estimates—about $43,000 for one Excel line and roughly $390,000 for East River service, plus another roughly $400,000 for related relocations—brought the combined estimate to about $3.536 million on the record.

The staff presentation also described a county request to transfer jurisdiction for the roadway and bridge to the city. Staff said maintenance records for the roadway are sparse and that the city has consistently resisted assuming responsibility for the bridge. On the record, staff cited a state statute that assigns responsibility for bridges longer than 20 feet to the county, and said the city “does not want to take that over.”

Staff noted an earlier developer agreement and an amended tax-increment financing (TIF) plan under which the city would front the cost of construction and capture 100% of the redevelopment tax increment for the first two years to repay the upfront expense; after two years the developer (identified on the record as Ben) would pay off the remaining balance under the prior agreement. Council members were told that, with the new higher estimate, the city would cover any cost increases beyond previous estimates and that staff is running updated TIF projections to determine how much additional tax increment the development could generate.

Council members asked about maintenance history, the expected useful life of different overlay options, and how long an inch-and-a-half overlay would carry the roadway before urbanization required full reconstruction. Staff said a 2-inch mill overlay would buy more time than a 1.5-inch overlay but acknowledged the decision depends on timing of build-out and future curb, gutter and sidewalk work. The council did not vote on a transfer or on construction funding tonight; staff asked for guidance to continue negotiating with the county and to return with updated cost and funding figures.

The council also heard that the corridor study tied to build-out may lower posted speed limits in the area, a change staff flagged as part of the corridor’s future traffic management needs.

What happens next: staff will continue negotiations with the county, run updated TIF projections and return to the council with cost-sharing proposals and more refined estimates. No formal transfer or construction decision was made at the meeting.