Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milton staff report signed contract to buy 260 acres for wastewater spray fields; geotechnical review to follow
Summary
City staff presented a fully signed contract to purchase roughly 260 acres north of an 80‑acre parcel for additional wastewater spray fields, at a price the manager said is $1,790,000. Council discussed due diligence, funding from sewer impact fees and permitting; no final council vote was recorded during the work session.
City Manager Tim Spears told the Milton City Council on July 8 that the city has a fully signed contract to buy approximately 260 acres to expand effluent spray fields for the wastewater system.
Spears said the city would purchase “everything but the delineated wetlands” from a 320‑acre parcel and identified the purchase price as $1,790,000 (about $6,900 per acre). He said the 80‑acre parcel previously acquired will remain part of the system and the new land would expand the spray field footprint and storage capacity.
The manager described the timeline in the contract: a 120‑day due‑diligence period followed by 30 days to close if the city proceeds, and a required $50,000 deposit into escrow to begin the clock. John Griffin, the broker representing the sale, told council teams typically complete geotechnical and other due diligence within the 120‑day window and that a closing often occurs earlier than the maximum allowed time.
Spears and staff said the additional land would be used with the 116‑ and 80‑acre parcels already in permitting for effluent disposal. The 116‑acre site is described in staff materials as permitted at about 0.9 million gallons per day (roughly 1,000,000 gpd); staff reported that adding the 260 acres would raise theoretical effluent disposal capacity to roughly 2.7–3.0 million gallons per day if soil and absorption conditions match those of the other parcels.
Spears said the purchase would be funded with sewer impact fees; staff noted that funds are available as shown in the meeting packet (the packet included a balance figure that was not clearly audible in the transcript). He also said the city has an $8 million grant from a local restore council toward the larger disposal project and that, if necessary, the project could be funded in cash from reserves and impact fees.
Spears and Griffin said the city will perform geotechnical, cultural and other assessments during due diligence. BDI (project manager/engineering partner) was reported to be preparing task orders so geotechnical work can begin once council directs staff to proceed.
Council members asked technical and programmatic questions: one councillor asked whether the $50,000 escrow is refundable if the site fails geotechnical review; Griffin replied the escrow is returned if the city elects to walk away during due diligence. The fire chief had earlier raised a separate access concern on another agenda item (rezoning) about secondary egress; council discussed access and permitting in the context of the spray‑fields project as well.
Council members debated whether to place the land‑purchase item on the consent agenda or leave it for discussion at the regular meeting to allow public comment. One member asked that it be left off consent so the public could comment. No formal council vote on the land purchase occurred during the work session; staff said they expect to provide further updates at the next workshop and that BDI will appear to brief council on permitting and RAIs (requests for additional information) from regulators.
Next steps listed by staff: deposit into escrow (if council approves), completion of geotechnical and cultural studies within the 120‑day due‑diligence window, and follow‑up permitting and BDI updates to council.
