Spalding County Water Authority outlines $18–22 million AKB sewer plan, asks county for short-term support

Spalding County’s water utility told county commissioners on March 3 that a proposed sewer system to serve the Arthur K. Bolton corridor would open roughly 5,000 acres to sewer service, require a multi-part construction program and likely need short-term county support to begin operation.

The Spalding County Water Authority’s general manager, Joseph Johnson, told the Board of Commissioners the authority has spent about $3.6 million so far — including $2.9 million in ARPA funds the county provided — and now estimates remaining capital needs at roughly $18.2 million, with a placeholder all‑in cost that could reach about $21.8 million as design and permits progress. "We've spent roughly $3,600,000 to date," Johnson said. He said the authority has completed about 80% of the construction documents and submitted required permits.

The ask and why it matters: Johnson said the authority is seeking county consideration of a contribution on the order of $500,000 a year for three years beginning June 2026 to help cover initial debt service and operating shortfalls as customers are connected. Commissioners discussed the request as an investment in economic development: commissioners said sewer capacity in the AKB corridor is essential to attract industry that will broaden the county’s tax base and relieve residential tax pressure.

Details of the design and timeline: The plan presented designs a 200,000-gallon-per-day (gpd) treatment plant, a lift station sized for 650,000 gpd and a gravity main sized for up to 2,400,000 gpd. The authority has purchased a roughly 26-acre site north of the Pine Ridge Landfill near the Wauney Road and Bailey Jester intersection for the plant and future expansions. Johnson said a tentative schedule would place construction completion and initial commissioning around August–September 2026 if the authority proceeds with the phase 2B contract as expected; the authority expects roughly 14 months from contract award to operation.

Operational and capacity limits: To operate the 200,000-gpd plant on conventional processes without excessive chemical costs or permit violations, Johnson said the plant needs initial flow on the order of 17,000 gpd — roughly the equivalent demand of about 100 typical households at common planning metrics. "Now we need about 17,000 gallons a day of sewer when we start that plant up," he said. The authority expects to run at a loss on operations for several years until enough customers sign on; it does not expect to reach a sustainable operating level until flows approach 100,000 gpd.

Costs and related obligations: Johnson warned that separate projects such as the SR‑155 redesignation will create utility-relocation costs. He estimated moving water, sanitary and fire utilities for some roadway projects could cost $8–10 million and said acquiring easements and coordinating relocations are an ongoing part of the authority’s work. The authority’s current budget figures show $190,000 spent in FY2024, $3.8 million in FY2025, and a proposed FY2026 appropriation near $24 million to cover upcoming construction phases.

Commissioners’ response and next steps: Board members generally framed the county contribution as an economic development investment rather than a subsidy of the utility. Several commissioners urged that the county manager include the proposed $500,000 per year placeholder in the manager’s draft budget so the board can consider it during the normal budget process; no formal county funding decision was made at the work session. Commissioners and staff said they will track tax-digest growth tied to early industrial customers and re-evaluate financial support after 3 years if the board approves any short-term assistance.

Proponents stressed modular design and future flexibility: Johnson and staff stressed the plant and systems are modular and that elements can be mirrored or moved in later phases; the site was purchased to accommodate future expansions. The authority said it is continuing value-engineering work to reduce costs before finalizing contracts.

What wasn’t decided: The board did not adopt a funding commitment; commissioners asked county staff to show the request in the upcoming budget materials and to return with more detailed projections and contract terms. The water authority will present a phase 2B guaranteed‑maximum‑price proposal to its board in March and expects to return to the county with firm numbers as procurement moves forward.

Ending: The authority’s leaders said they will continue permitting, easement acquisition and contractor negotiation while coordinating with county finance staff so commissioners can consider the proposed short‑term support in the FY2026 budget cycle.