Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brightmark Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners remove BrightMark presentation from agenda after procedural objection; residents present petition opposing project
Summary
The board voted to remove a scheduled BrightMark presentation from the Jan. 28 agenda on procedural grounds; during public comment residents presented a petition (stated as more than 600 signatures) and spoke against a proposed BrightMark-related industrial project in the county.
The Upson County Board of Commissioners voted Jan. 28 to remove a scheduled presentation and discussion about BrightMark from the meeting agenda after a commissioner said the board lacked authority to deliberate on the matter at this time.
A commissioner moved to remove “Item 8d, presentation discussion with Rusty Blackstock about BrightMark,” saying the county does not have decision-making authority over BrightMark and that the item was added to the agenda without the required approvals. The motion passed by recorded voice vote with the full board recorded in favor.
After the agenda change, dozens of residents used the public-comment period to press the board to oppose the BrightMark proposal. Rusty Blackstock, who identified himself as having submitted a petition, told commissioners the petition included “over 600 signatures” and read a statement asking the board to oppose a BrightMark project and calling for a public declaration at the next regular meeting. The petition text presented to the board alleges the Thomaston-Upson Industrial Development Authority issued an industrial development revenue bond in the amount of $879,000,000 “to purchase land, construct the facility, and to purchase equipment” for a chemical recycling and conversion center and references lawsuits and investor pullback in the industry.
“Some of you'll see, I know is not up to county residence...there's over 600 signatures on this…,” Rusty Blackstock said while presenting the petition. Jerry Marston and Tracy Knapp also spoke in public comment; Knapp, who said she and her husband are “regenerative farmers,” told commissioners the proposed project “is gonna ruin everything” for nearby farms and raised concerns about water safety and property values.
Commissioners repeatedly told speakers the board’s formal authority over BrightMark is limited and that any formal actions will follow the appropriate process; several commissioners said they would meet with constituents and allow additional discussion at a future work session if requested. One commissioner urged the community to decide collectively “who we want to be” so the county can manage growth proactively.
No formal county action to accept or deny the petition or to take a position on BrightMark was taken at the Jan. 28 meeting; commissioners advised residents that public comment remains the appropriate venue for expressing views and that the board would consider additional engagement or hearings if requested.
