Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Development Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge moratorium or bonding for BrightMark; county officials explain IDA land agreement and permitting limits
Summary
Residents urged Upson County commissioners on March 25 to adopt a moratorium or require a performance bond for BrightMark’s proposed chemical‑recycling project; commissioners explained the site is tied to an Industrial Development Authority land‑purchase agreement and said permitting would run through state channels.
Residents at the March 25 Upson County Board of Commissioners meeting urged the board to block or impose safeguards on BrightMark’s proposed chemical‑recycling project, asking for a moratorium on pyrolysis/gasification, a required surety/performance trust to cover potential environmental cleanup, and for county officials to explore legal steps to make the project less attractive.
Speakers including Tammy Boyle, Michael Greenman, Rusty Blackson, Dana Fowler, Mary Pat Jones and Tracy Knapp described research they said showed risks from chemical recycling, noted BrightMark’s recent financial difficulties in Indiana, and asked the county to require a bond or trust to cover future remediation costs if a plant were abandoned or to adopt an emergency moratorium on the technology. Several speakers cited examples of localities that have enacted moratoria or bond requirements and urged the county to act preemptively.
Commissioners responded in public remarks. Chairman Brew explained that the property where BrightMark has proposed to locate is under a land-purchase agreement with the Industrial Development Authority (IDA), not directly owned by the county commission. He said BrightMark has placed earnest payments with the IDA but has not yet closed on the land. Brew described the agreement as a conditional land-purchase contract: BrightMark must meet permitting requirements (including air-permit review by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division) and demonstrate financing within specified deadlines in the agreement; if BrightMark fails to meet those conditions the IDA retains the deposit.
Brew also told the audience that the IDA is a separate legal entity with two elected officials serving on it and that the county commissioners are not the decision-maker for the IDA’s contractual obligations. He said that if BrightMark applies for state air permits the permitting process would include a public comment period during which any party could raise concerns.
Speakers pressed the board on what the commission could do. Tracy Knapp read from Title 36, Chapter 9 of the Official Code of Georgia, asserting that control of county property is vested in the county commission; Brew responded that the land in question is held by the IDA and that the IDA’s contractual obligations and liabilities would shape any county action. Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to residents’ safety concerns and suggested looking into forms of protection — including bonding or ordinance changes — but noted legal and contractual limits on the county’s immediate authority.
Several speakers also urged transparency and more active outreach to the state, IDA, and officials in other jurisdictions that have hosted BrightMark projects. Commissioners said they would discuss possible ordinance reviews and coordinate with the IDA and city officials as appropriate. No formal county action on BrightMark was taken at the meeting; the session recorded extensive public comment and a commitment from commissioners to discuss ordinance language and next steps at upcoming work sessions.
