Milton council hears financial and infrastructure update on Deerfield implementation plan

Good evening. Milton city staff presented a detailed update on the Deerfield implementation plan during the council meeting on March 3, 2025, outlining the current schedule, infrastructure studies and preliminary financial projections.

The presentation focused on phase 3 of the Deerfield plan, which staff said consists mainly of code revisions and text amendments that staff intends to run through the normal adoption cycle in May–June, the step the city indicated would allow lifting of the existing moratorium on certain development approvals. Staff also described concurrent technical work—traffic and drainage/hydrology studies and coordination with utility providers—that will inform final development standards and infrastructure timing.

The update matters because Deerfield is central to the city’s strategy to increase commercial tax base and fund future capital needs. Staff presented buildout scenarios, assumptions used to construct fiscal estimates, and school‑capacity implications that will inform council choices about density, incentives and protective conditions for schools and neighborhoods.

Director of Special Projects Bob Buscemi summarized the project status and schedule and stressed that the work is long‑range: “we’re in phase 3,” and that “by the time we design it 3 years, by the time they build it 2 years, you’re looking at 5 years down the road.” Buscemi said staff is preparing code changes now and expects the text amendments to follow the city’s regular adoption cycle targeted for May–June.

Staff described the technical coordination underway. Buscemi said the city is meeting regularly with utility providers: “We’ve been meeting regularly with utility providers like, Georgia Power…they’re working on analyzing what these proposed projects would mean as far as their demand on the grid.” He also said Fulton County Water completed a citywide water‑demand study with a concentration on Deerfield and provided a published report staff can make available to council.

On scale and fiscal assumptions, staff presented development totals and conservative valuation assumptions. According to the presentation, the Deerfield district as modeled could yield about 1,786 residential units and roughly 874,000 square feet of new commercial space. Using construction‑cost‑based assumptions, staff showed a total construction value for the modeled buildout of about $1,364,000,000; permit fee generation on that value was estimated at roughly $6,800,000 and total impact fees about $23,300,000. Staff estimated parks‑related impact fees in the range of $12,000,000. Bernadette Veil, the deputy city manager, said the tax base assumptions start from construction cost and historic personal property and homestead trends and concluded: “So we will be doubling our commercial tax base.”

Staff repeatedly described the assumptions and cautioned the council that figures are conservative starting points. Bernadette Veil said they treated mixed‑use, vertically integrated parcels conservatively as residential for the fiscal projections so the commercial increase is not overstated. She summarized the methodology: fair‑market value was estimated from construction cost, average commercial personal property was added based on historic trends, and homestead exemptions and current millage were held constant for modeling.

Timeline and market absorption were emphasized. Staff told council the earliest material impacts on city services would likely be three to five years, with full buildout measured over a 20‑year horizon. “It’s a 20 year plan,” staff said, and noted that permit, design and construction phasing slow the visible impacts.

Schools and capacity were a focus of council questions. A staff presenter with school data (identified only as Robin in the record) walked through feeder patterns, current enrollments and the Georgia Department of Education capacity figures. Using the Stone Creek area as an example, Robin said, “Cogburn Elementary School has 779 students and with the proposed development they would be adding 21,” and that those totals remain below the state capacity figure cited for the school. Staff warned that some school attendance zones could approach capacity under higher‑intake scenarios and that the county could respond by redistricting if thresholds are met. Councilors asked about the county’s typical redistricting triggers; the presenter said she would follow up with details on county thresholds and historic redistricting in the Deerfield area.

Staff also told council the city will bring an amendment for the council’s April agenda to change the timing of impact‑fee collection. Bernadette Veil said the proposed ordinance would require payment at the time of permit issuance rather than at certificate of occupancy: “We’re actually doing an amendment… to force everybody to pay their impact fee at the time of issuance of the permit and not waiting till 6, 9, 12 months later at the certificate of occupancy.”

Council members emphasized preserving Milton’s character and using incentives and conditions to shape Deerfield development. Buscemi and staff noted incentive options—density allowances and developer obligations such as trail construction, parking and restroom facilities at trailheads—and stressed that many infrastructure costs will be captured by impact fees dedicated to particular review and capital needs.

What’s next: staff said they will continue the text amendment process through the normal schedule, finalize technical studies (traffic, drainage, utilities), provide departmental impact summaries and circulate the school‑capacity spreadsheets and the Fulton County Water report to the council. Staff emphasized that final fiscal and capacity outcomes will depend on development pacing, market choices (for example, whether developers build parking structures), and council decisions about incentive and age‑restriction policies.

Ending: Council thanked staff for the analysis and the presentation concluded without formal council action on Deerfield at the March 3 meeting; staff will return with follow‑up materials and proposed text amendments later in the spring.