PEMBROKE – The Bryan County Board of Commissioners addressed three separate agenda items concerning the future of the Development Authority of Bryan County during its Tuesday meeting, tabling two proposed resolutions until December while voting against a measure that would have dissolved the existing authority and created a new one.
The decisions came after a lengthy executive session and after Bryan County Attorney Aaron Kappler outlined the county’s concerns about the authority’s finances, reporting requirements and ongoing relationship with the county, which created the authority in 2005.
County commissioners seemed to be on the same page about not dissolving the authority, all except District 5 Commissioner Gene Wallace, who also serves on the Development Authority Board of Directors as well as District 1 Commissioner Alex Floyd. Both opposed the motion to deny the Development Authority’s dissolution.
Wallace declined to comment on his stance after the meeting.
How did they get here?
Kappler said during the meeting that the county's concerns largely stemmed from a 2025 budget decision to eliminate the Development Authority’s annual appropriation of about $560,000.
The annual appropriation, which had been billed to the county at approximately $50,000 per month, was removed from the budget as part of an effort to reduce county expenditures and to help the county lower its millage rate and return money to taxpayers.
Despite the funding being removed from the budget, Kappler said the Development Authority continued sending monthly invoices to the county, which have not been paid.
"I don't believe the county's legally obligated to pay those invoices," Kappler said to commissioners.
Kappler also said county administration had requested access to the Development Authority's auditor to obtain information and discuss potential solutions, but that request was denied by the authority.
Another concern raised by the county involved a reporting requirement established upon the Development Authority’s 2005 creation. Under the original resolution, the authority is required to provide the county with written reports every 90 days.
Kappler claimed the development authority has about “12 million in unrestricted cash on hand.”
“So this $560,000 was not necessary for the development authority to function,” he said to commissioners. “We know that to be true because it's operated this entire year.”
Concerns about this funding rollback came up during the Development Authority’s May 12 meeting. Members of the Board of Directors as well as the DABC’s legal counsel debated whether the County was contractually obligated to provide funding to the DABC.
According to meeting notes from Corey Foreman, a North Bryan resident and former State Senate candidate who attended and livestreamed the May meeting, Attorney Lea Holliday brought up state law allowing the county to raise the millage rate by up to one mill if additional funds were needed.
Under a 2018 Intergovernmental agreement between the county and DABC, the county is obligated to provide the DABC $577,650 in annual funding through monthly installments. This financial obligation continues through Dec. 31, 2028, according to the agreement.
This agreement was signed by Bryan County Chairman Carter Infinger as well as the DABC’s chairman and secretary at the time.
However, the original 2005 resolution that formed the DABC doesn't account for any funding obligation from the county to the authority.
A letter sent to the DABC by Kappler in September reads that the Commission's position is that the 2018 agreement is "not enforceable in its current form."
"The County does not consider itself perpetually bound to continue financial contributions where doing so conflicts with its fiscal priorities, policy objectives, legal authority, or the best interests of the citizens," Kappler's letter reads.
Commissioners table proposed oversight changes
The first resolution considered would amend the original July 12, 2005 resolution establishing the Development Authority.
The proposed changes would give commissioners the ability to remove Development Authority board members appointed by the county commission through a majority vote.
It would also require commission approval before the Development Authority could hire executive-level employees who would receive county employee benefits.
Kappler said the proposed changes were intended to establish additional oversight, particularly when the authority hires employees whose benefits are funded through the county's personnel policies and budget.
The proposed approval requirement would apply only to executive-level positions, not regular employees.
District 4 Commissioner Patrick Kisgen made a motion to table the resolution until December. The motion passed, with all commissioners voting in favor except Wallace and District 1 Commissioner Alex Floyd.
Second resolution would limit authority’s activities
The second resolution would determine the current public need for the Development Authority and establish limits on the scope of its activities.
Kappler said that when the authority was created in 2005, commissioners formally declared a public need for an organization dedicated to pursuing economic development opportunities in Bryan County.
The proposed resolution would not dissolve the authority but would narrow the activities it could pursue.
Under the proposal, the authority would no longer have a public need to actively solicit or procure new economic development projects at this time. Instead, its responsibilities would be limited to managing existing projects, servicing outstanding debts, overseeing existing contracts, and handling employee-related matters.
Kappler described the proposal as a way to maintain the existing organization while restricting its activities to current obligations.
Commissioners also voted to table the second resolution until December.
Commission votes against dissolving and replacing authority
The final resolution would have initiated the dissolution of the existing Development Authority and established a new authority with a different board structure.
In order to do this, outstanding bonds and debts would have to be paid. Kappler estimated the authority currently owes about $5.6 million on a bond held by a third-party bank.
Under the proposed resolution, county administration and Development Authority staff would work together to identify the authority's assets, debts, contracts and other obligations. The outstanding bond would have to be paid in full before the existing authority could be dissolved.
Once dissolved, the existing authority's assets and liabilities would transfer to the county. A newly established Development Authority would then receive those assets and assume the remaining liabilities.
The proposal also called for reducing the Development Authority's board from nine members to seven regular directors.
The county administrator as well as the mayors of Bryan County's two municipalities would serve as ex officio members.
The resolution set Dec. 9 at 12:01 a.m. as the proposed effective date for the dissolution and creation of the replacement authority, allowing the transition to occur without a gap between the two organizations.
Despite the outlined transition process, commissioners voted to deny the dissolution resolution. Wallace and Floyd opposed the vote.
What’s next
Bryan County’s Commission will revisit the tabled items at its December meeting.
Holliday thanked the commission for considering the issue and allowing time for the two county entities to work together to resolve concerns.
“I pledge that the Development Authority will do that,” Holliday said. “You have selected good people to be on that board, and I think we can work together for a better Bryan County.”
Members of the DABC Board and staff attended the meeting, including Board Chairman Jeff Glazer, Secretary Kristi Cox (Mayor of Richmond Hill) and President and CEO Ryan Purvis. They did not comment during the meeting
While it’s unclear what led the Board of Commissioners to consider dissolving the DABC, this discussion comes at a time when development authorities throughout the region are facing intense scrutiny over development projects.
Bryan County’s Development Authority was in the hot seat early this year after it initially courted Westwin Elements, a metal refining company that sought to build a nickel refinery in Richmond Hill. This development proposal received intense community backlash and even opposition from DABC board members and other county leadership.
Westwin has since found a new home for its nickel refinery in Natchez, Mississippi.
In Effingham County, the Industrial Development Authority faces multiple lawsuits over its planned 1,400-acre OpenAI data center campus. In a most recent lawsuit, plaintiffs and community members accuse the development authority, along with other county leaders, of fraud and concealment, civil conspiracy and civil racketeering, among other things, in an attempt to seal the OpenAI deal without public knowledge.
The DABC will not be releasing a statement on the meeting at this time, according to sources.