DAAC records: What was answered, what arrived later, and what remains unclear

Published September 25, 2026 · Edition v4. Video-source attribution clarified September 25, 2026. Requester identity redacted September 25, 2026. Correspondence through September 23, 2026; dated public-information update September 24.

Public reading copy: requester name and identifying contact details redacted. Originals retained privately. References to a county resident or the requester identify the same person throughout this account.

A plain-language account of the requests, replies and records, prepared by C.L.O.C.K. Accountability.

This story begins with a useful answer. On August 17, 2026, a county resident asked the Development Authority of Appling County, or DAAC, for records identifying its properties. The next afternoon, DAAC President/CEO Matt Carter emailed a list of seven properties, with parcel numbers, locations, acreage and descriptions of their use.

The requester considers that property-identification need answered. The parcel numbers gave him what he needed to look up the properties through QPublic. This account therefore does not treat separate maps or ordinary parcel information as an outstanding problem. That is the requester's assessment of what met his needs; the original request and Carter's reply remain available in their own words.

The questions that followed were different: What records did DAAC have about data-center inquiries and electric capacity? What was planned for a September 15 Georgia Power event? And what rules and board membership govern DAAC today? Two later requests, dated August 18 and September 8, addressed those subjects.

On September 22, DAAC sent six PDFs: five document attachments and one invoice. The next day, Carter said all requested documents had been provided. The requester had thanked him for the delivery and asked for more records and clarification. This account shows both positions and the documents behind them.

Read the source: August 17 original property request [P01] • August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01] • The data-center request [A01] • The September request [A05] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

1. The property question received a useful answer

The August 17 request sought existing records identifying property DAAC owned, leased, optioned, controlled, held for development or marketed. It listed several possible record types, including parcel lists, inventories, maps and databases. It did not ask DAAC to create a new map or report.

Carter replied on August 18 at 2:31 p.m. with seven property entries in the body of his email. There were no attachments. His reply supplied the parcel identifiers that the requester needed for his own property research.

The requester later explained in project discussions that the parcel numbers should be credited because the information could be looked up in QPublic. For this account, the property-identification and ordinary map-information issue is answered. We are not counting a missing map or a missing duplicate parcel inventory as a continuing deficiency.

This does not make the parcel list an answer to every later question. A list of land being marketed does not tell a reader whether anyone asked about a data center, what a utility said, or what DAAC's current board rules are. Those subjects belong to the later requests.

Credit the property reply, then move on to the different questions raised in the later requests.

Read the source: August 17 original property request [P01] • August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01]

2. The next request asked about data-center activity

On August 18 at 3:02 p.m., after Carter's property reply, the requester sent a separate request about data-center development and site marketing. It covered records from January 1, 2025 through the request date. Its ten categories included inquiries, possible sites, utility communications, incentives and official actions.

Three days later, on August 21, Carter acknowledged the request and said he needed a couple of days the following week. On August 24, three days after that acknowledgment, Johnson replied for DAAC.

Johnson said DAAC had received limited data-center inquiries and had contacted SREMC about electrical capacity. He also said that, to DAAC's knowledge, there was no site under consideration or proposed or marketed for a data center, and no described studies, evaluations, proposals or requests for proposals. He concluded that DAAC had no meeting minutes or other documents related to those matters.

That reply answered several points as DAAC's official position. It also left a practical question: if inquiries and a utility conversation had taken place, were there existing emails or other records of those contacts? The requester asked for clarification on September 8, fifteen calendar days after Johnson's reply.

The follow-up concerned records of acknowledged past contacts. It did not depend on proving an active data-center project.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC acknowledges the request [A02] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • The requester asks what the August reply covered [A04]

3. The hearing announcement led to a new request

The announcement that prompted this request was made at the September 1, 2026 Appling County Board of Commissioners public hearing on a 180-day moratorium. The requester identifies Matt Carter as the speaker who described a September 15 Georgia Power session, invited commissioners and said the public could not attend. The requester says hearing that announcement led him to request the event records on September 8.

Watch the September 1 hearing at 39:16. The relevant discussion runs approximately 39:16–39:51. This is the hearing where the later September 15 session was discussed.

Video source: 2026 09 01 Appling Co Board of Commissioners Called Mtg Public Hearing 180 Day Moratorium, published on YouTube by Appling County GA Commissioners.

The saved captions for that passage describe a Georgia Power data-center meeting two weeks later, for community leaders, and use the words 'not open to the general public.' The captions do not reliably identify every speaker or the precise invitation to commissioners; those details are attributed to the requester. The original audio has not been independently verified for this account.

For the requester, the question was straightforward: if public officials were being invited to learn about data centers, why could the public not listen too? His records request sought the invitation, expected attendance and explanation for excluding the public.

Seven calendar days after the hearing, on September 8, the requester submitted the new records request. It sought records about a planned September 15 Georgia Power presentation, who was expected to attend, public access and confidentiality. It also sought historical inquiries, utility communications, records within the stated East River Road scope, current governance records, and any existing records documenting the earlier search. The event-related categories were marked as priorities.

Quorum means the minimum number of members needed for a board to conduct business. Attendance matters because a quorum hearing or discussing its public business generally triggers open-meeting rules, even without a vote. There are exceptions, including the regional-training exception Johnson cited.

On September 11, three days later, Johnson said the event had been canceled. He attributed that decision to the prospect of a one-sided debate and rally, described the planned event as a regional information meeting, cited the regional training/information exception in Georgia's Open Meetings Act, and said there was no need to respond further on that point. Those are Johnson's explanation and characterization of the event.

He also stated that DAAC had no records related to a proposed data-center site in Appling County, specifically East River Road. He said governance records would be provided after his return from travel and estimated $500 if a point-by-point response was wanted.

The requester replied that he wanted existing records, rather than a newly written report or legal argument. He acknowledged DAAC's East River Road statement, kept his $25 cost authorization in place, and asked for the event records and a production timetable. On September 12, Johnson said he could not provide a cost estimate until he returned and met with DAAC staff.

The requester followed up on September 16 and September 19. He asked for available records to be released in installments and for a clear answer about anything still outstanding: when it would arrive, whether no records existed, or whether a particular legal exception prevented release. He expressly said he was not asking for duplicate work or records already supplied.

The request was meant to find out what was planned, who was invited and what supported excluding the public. The records let readers examine the answer.

Read the source: September 1 public-hearing video and the requester's account [C05] • The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • The requester explains what he is asking for [A07] • An estimate is deferred [A08] • The requester asks for dates, without duplicate work [A09] • The requester gives a requested correction date [A10] • Georgia Open Meetings Act, AG-posted text [L2] • Georgia open-government guide, meeting rules [L3]

Quorum: why the number in the room matters

How many people make a quorum?

Use that body's governing rule. For example, if a seven-member board requires a majority, four is enough: half of seven is 3.5, and four is the smallest whole number above half. That is an illustration, not a finding about DAAC's current roster.

When does the public get to attend?

A quorum receiving or discussing the body's public business generally means an open meeting, unless a legal exception applies. No vote is necessary. Count DAAC and the Commission separately; an official committee can also have its own quorum. Fewer members does not automatically settle every access question.

What about training?

Georgia excludes qualifying statewide, multijurisdictional or regional training/information gatherings where members take no official action. Johnson relied on this provision. Calling something training alone does not establish the exception; the event's actual arrangements matter. The exclusion cannot be used primarily to evade the law.

When may a covered meeting be closed?

A lawful executive session needs a permitted subject and the required closure procedure: a majority vote of a quorum present, public minutes recording the reason and closure vote, and a notarized affidavit. The parts without an exception stay open.

Why ask for the records?

The requester sought the documents needed to understand the invitation, expected attendance and claimed exception. The supplied record does not establish the expected number from each body or settle that classification. It does not prove an unlawful closed meeting occurred. Cancellation and access to existing planning records are separate questions.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • DAAC bylaws [B02] • Georgia Open Meetings Act, AG-posted text [L2] • Georgia open-government guide, meeting rules [L3]

4. Six PDFs arrived on September 22

On September 20, Carter said DAAC had no data-center projects and invited a conversation about economic development. Johnson offered meeting availability. The requester said he was open to talking after receiving and reviewing the records.

Two days later, Carter sent six PDFs in one email. That was 35 calendar days after the August 18 request and 14 calendar days after the September 8 request. These are elapsed calendar days, not findings about a legal deadline.

The delivery contained DAAC's historical creation records, a bylaws file, a training-planning email, industrial site-selection correspondence, a utility capacity email and a $100 invoice. Carter also said he had received no presentation information from Georgia Power and, to DAAC's knowledge, Black Ink had not continued looking in Appling County.

That evening, the requester thanked Carter, described the delivery as partial, asked for continued release of records within his authorization, and offered to arrange the conversation. On September 23, Carter replied that all requested documents had been provided and that DAAC was not working with a data-center client. He separately stated a rate for future estimates of $20 per hour plus legal costs.

This is where the positions differ. DAAC said the work was complete. The requester believed specific questions about the records and the handling of the requests remained. The comparisons below explain those questions without treating either party's conclusion as an independent finding.

There was one September delivery. It must be credited once, with each document connected to the subject it addresses.

Read the source: Carter invites a conversation [A11] • Johnson offers meeting availability [A12] • The requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records [A13] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • The requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release [A15] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16] • DAAC creation records [B01] • DAAC bylaws [B02] • Georgia Power training-planning email [B03] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04] • Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05] • Records invoice [B06]

What arrived on September 22?

The August property list was supplied in an email. The later September 22 delivery was six PDFs: 6 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 18 PDF pages. That total includes a one-page invoice and one blank bylaws page. Our summaries and repeated correspondence are not additional DAAC records. Separately researched documents are in a different PDF.

Five document attachments + one invoice = six files. Their pages add up to 6 + 6 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 18. The property email was a separate, earlier answer.

DAAC creation records

6 original PDF pages | Sent by DAAC on September 22

Historical activation and certification documents from 1973.

What it answers: Helps establish DAAC's origins and powers.

Read the source: DAAC creation records [B01]

DAAC bylaws

6 original PDF pages | Sent by DAAC on September 22

Five pages of text and one blank page. The filename says 2016; the adoption statement says April 19, 1974.

What it answers: Supplies rules on the board, powers, meetings, committees, officers and amendments.

Read the source: DAAC bylaws [B02]

Georgia Power training-planning email

1 original PDF page | Sent by DAAC on September 22

An August 24, 2026 email arranging a call about upcoming training and an EMC representative.

What it answers: Provides an actual planning record for the event described in the delivery.

Read the source: Georgia Power training-planning email [B03]

Black Ink site-selection correspondence

3 original PDF pages | Sent by DAAC on September 22

October 2025 emails asking about industrial land and substantial power capacity, followed by Carter's site information and utility introduction.

What it answers: Documents a prospect inquiry, DAAC's reply and utility coordination.

Read the source: Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

Satilla's Park West capacity email

1 original PDF page | Sent by DAAC on September 22

An October 21, 2025 email describing 4-5 megawatts then available and studies and construction needed for more.

What it answers: Documents a real limit on immediately available capacity and a two-to-three-year construction timeline for more.

Read the source: Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05]

Records invoice

1 original PDF page | Sent by DAAC on September 22

Invoice 1116: five hours at $20 per hour, totaling $100.

What it answers: States the hours, rate and amount billed for records work.

Read the source: Records invoice [B06]

What is answered, and what still needs an answer?

Open any question below. Each explanation starts with what DAAC supplied, then shows what that answer does and does not settle.

What is settled for this review?

Property-identification need answered

What was asked

Which properties did DAAC identify, and could the requester locate them?

What came back

Carter supplied seven parcel entries the next afternoon. The requester says those identifiers were sufficient for his QPublic research.

What that tells us

The article credits that answer. Separate maps and ordinary parcel details are not being presented as missing answers. This is the requester's stated practical resolution, not a rewrite of the original email.

What would clear it up

No additional map or duplicate parcel-list demand is made in this account.

Read the source: August 17 original property request [P01] • August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01]

Which past inquiries do the later emails explain?

Records supplied; connection still needs explanation

What was asked

What records existed of data-center inquiries and DAAC's utility contact?

What came back

Johnson acknowledged limited data-center inquiries and an SREMC contact. The later delivery included Black Ink's industrial site inquiry, Carter's reply and Satilla's Park West email.

What that tells us

These are useful records. They do not expressly identify Black Ink's intended use as a data center, so we cannot assume they are the same inquiries Johnson described. The September request also covered other large electric loads, which gives the supplied utility correspondence a clear place in that request.

What would clear it up

Identify which supplied records answer the acknowledged inquiries, and give a clear response for any remaining existing records.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • The requester asks what the August reply covered [A04] • The September request [A05] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04] • Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05]

What about the two site PDFs named in an email?

Specific files named, but not included

What was asked

Existing site-selection and utility records within the requests' stated scope.

What came back

Carter's October 3, 2025 email names Parcel 0021 0041.pdf and Park West Spec Building Flyer.pdf. Neither is one of the six delivered files or reproduced or embedded in the three-page correspondence PDF.

What that tells us

This is a question about two identifiable files in a particular exchange. It is separate from the requester's acceptance of the August parcel list. We do not know whether the parcel PDF merely duplicates information the requester can obtain from QPublic or whether either file contains additional material.

What would clear it up

Explain whether the files are still held and covered by the request; supply them, identify a lawful reason for withholding, or explain any duplication already satisfied. Do not count their absence as proof of deliberate withholding.

Read the source: August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01] • The September request [A05] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

What did the utility actually say?

Capacity limit documented; broader statement needs support

What was asked

Records about available power, expansion requirements and service timing.

What came back

Satilla said a 4-5 MW load could be served at Park West then. More would require studies and major construction, with a two-to-three-year timeline. Carter later said Georgia Power and EMCs would not provide grid upgrades for the prospect.

What that tells us

A megawatt, or MW, is a measure of power. The email supports a capacity and timing constraint. That could prevent a prospect from getting service when it needs it. It does not, by itself, establish that no upgrade would ever be offered or who would pay. Carter's earlier 8.5 MW description may refer to a different measure or condition; it should not be subtracted from 4-5 MW or applied to the entire county.

What would clear it up

Identify the additional communications or technical context supporting the broader statement about upgrades.

Read the source: DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04] • Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05]

Why do the board numbers differ?

Historical documents differ; current voting roster unconfirmed

What was asked

Current bylaws, amendments, board membership and director terms.

What came back

The supplied bylaws say seven directors. A separate 2007 public assessment describes nine. A separate June 2024 announcement names a chair and nine others as board members: 1 + 9 = 10. A December 2025 County record documents a County-seat reappointment.

What that tells us

These sources describe different dates and are not a current voting roster. The nine- and ten-person descriptions came from C.L.O.C.K. research, not the six-file delivery. The later reappointment cannot simply be added to the 2024 list to claim eleven members. Johnson's appearance as a board member in 2024 and as counsel in the emails also does not, by itself, establish a conflict. The current membership and governing quorum rule also matter when deciding how many directors would have to gather for open-meeting requirements to apply.

What would clear it up

Provide the current roster, director terms and voting or advisory roles, with the governing documents and appointment records that explain the differences.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • DAAC creation records [B01] • DAAC bylaws [B02] • June 2024 appointment announcement [C01] • January 2007 community assessment [C02] • December 2025 County appointment minutes [C04] • Georgia Open Meetings Act, AG-posted text [L2]

Are these the rules DAAC uses today?

Rules supplied; current completeness not explained

What was asked

Current governing documents and operating rules.

What came back

DAAC supplied its creation records and bylaws. The bylaws filename says 2016, while the signed adoption statement says April 19, 1974. They contain real provisions on powers, meetings, officers and amendments.

What that tells us

An old document can still be in force. Age alone is not evidence that it is invalid or that an amendment was withheld. But readers cannot tell from this delivery whether it is the complete current version. The bylaws describe a regular January meeting, while a separately obtained 2026 schedule lists monthly meetings. A committee paragraph also ends with an unfinished sentence; that warrants checking the governing copy, not alleging alteration.

What would clear it up

Confirm the complete rules currently in force and identify any retained amendments, meeting resolutions or specific operating authorizations that apply.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • DAAC creation records [B01] • DAAC bylaws [B02] • 2026 meeting schedule, separately obtained [C03]

Did canceling the September 15 event answer the records request?

One planning email supplied; several subjects remain unclear

What was asked

Existing planning, invitation, attendance, public-access and confidentiality records for the proposed event.

What came back

Johnson said the event was canceled and characterized it as a regional information meeting. DAAC later supplied an August 24 training-planning email. Carter said he had received no presentation information from Georgia Power.

What that tells us

The planning email should be credited, and so should Carter's statement about presentation materials. Cancellation does not tell a reader what planning records were already held. The supplied record does not settle the full invitation list, expected attendance, public-access arrangements or whether other requested records existed. Records created after September 8 must be assessed against the actual request dates and scope.

What would clear it up

Give a clear answer for the remaining requested subjects, distinguishing records not held from records withheld or still to be supplied.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • The requester explains what he is asking for [A07] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • Georgia Power training-planning email [B03]

What was said about confidentiality?

A statement appears; no agreement established by it

What was asked

Existing confidentiality agreements, restrictions and policies within the request's scope.

What came back

Black Ink's email says the company would treat information shared with it as confidential. Johnson also cited legal provisions when discussing the event and hypothetical records.

What that tells us

The sender's assurance is not the same as an agreement signed by DAAC or a DAAC policy. Likewise, the legal classification of a gathering and the release of its records are different questions. The cited economic-development provision concerns specified state Department of Economic Development project documents; its application to any particular DAAC-held record was not explained.

What would clear it up

Identify any actual responsive agreement or restriction, or clearly state what records are not held. For any withholding, identify the record or portion and applicable legal basis.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • The requester explains what he is asking for [A07] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04] • Georgia Open Records Act, AG-posted text [L1] • Georgia Open Meetings Act, AG-posted text [L2]

Why was a timetable still being requested?

Delivery occurred; the earlier scheduling question remains

What was asked

Release available records in installments and provide a timetable for the rest.

What came back

Johnson tied governance production to his return from travel and a cost estimate to a later staff meeting. Those replies gave no definite date. The requester followed up. The six PDFs arrived September 22.

What that tells us

The delivery resolved the question of whether those six files would arrive. It did not explain what had prevented earlier release of available records. The issue is the agency's process, not a criticism of personal travel. The requester's September 23 checkpoint was a date he requested for correction; it was not a new statutory deadline.

What would clear it up

Clarify the processing steps and timing for any remaining records. Any legal assessment must also account for the actual request, available records, exemptions and lawful cost arrangements.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • An estimate is deferred [A08] • The requester asks for dates, without duplicate work [A09] • The requester gives a requested correction date [A10] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14]

What records show how the search was conducted?

No additional search record identified in the delivery

What was asked

Existing instructions, custodian requests, search terms or logs if maintained, and nonexempt records of the August search.

What came back

The correspondence describes the responses. The invoice reports five hours of work. No additional existing search instructions, logs or similar records were identified in the six PDFs.

What that tells us

A bill for time does not prove a search log existed. The requester asked for records already maintained, not for DAAC to create a new search report. The question is whether any such existing records were held and what happened to that part of the request.

What would clear it up

State whether responsive existing search records were found, supplied, withheld or not held.

Read the source: The September request [A05] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16] • Records invoice [B06]

How did a $25 authorization become a $100 invoice?

Amount billed is clear; basis and authorization need explanation

What was asked

Advance cost notice in August. In September, no costs above $25 without prior written approval, with an estimate before exceeding that limit.

What came back

Johnson estimated $500 for a point-by-point response on September 11, then said an estimate required a later staff meeting. The September 22 invoice billed 5 hours x $20 = $100. There is no separate attorney-fee line. Carter's September 23 statement addressed future estimates.

What that tells us

The invoice exceeds the September authorization by $100 – $25 = $75. That difference is a documented question, not a decision about the amount legally owed. The record does not show how time was divided between requests, whose rate was used, or whether the billed hours already excluded the first free quarter-hour. The $500 discussion, $100 invoice and future-rate statement are three different things.

What would clear it up

Explain the authorized work, rate and time calculation, and identify the nature and basis of any proposed legal charge. Do not automatically subtract another $5 without knowing how the five hours were calculated.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • The September request [A05] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • The requester explains what he is asking for [A07] • An estimate is deferred [A08] • The requester gives a requested correction date [A10] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • The requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release [A15] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16] • Records invoice [B06] • Georgia Open Records Act, AG-posted text [L1]

Follow each exchange from start to finish

The short story above covers the turning points. These timelines include the intervening replies, clarifications and follow-ups. The dates tell you when a message was sent; “days later” is measured from the preceding displayed entry. Counts are calendar days, not legal-deadline findings.

August 17 property request: the lookup need was answered

August 17: the requester asks for property records

Request sent | Day 0

The request asked for existing records identifying property DAAC held or marketed.

Read the source: August 17 original property request [P01]

August 18: Carter sends seven properties

Next calendar day | About 20 hours after the request

The reply contains parcel numbers, locations, acreage and use descriptions. The requester considers these sufficient for his QPublic lookup needs.

Read the source: August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01]

August 18 data-center request: every reply in order

August 18, 2026 at 3:02 PM Eastern — The data-center request

Request sent | 0 calendar days from August 18

The requester asks for existing records about data-center sites, inquiries, infrastructure, incentives and official actions.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01]

August 21, 2026 at 9:37 AM Eastern — DAAC acknowledges the request

3 days after the preceding entry | 3 calendar days from August 18

Carter says he needs a couple of days the following week because of the length of the request.

Read the source: DAAC acknowledges the request [A02]

August 24, 2026 at 3:39 PM Eastern — DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents

3 days after the preceding entry | 6 calendar days from August 18

Johnson acknowledges limited data-center inquiries and a utility contact. He gives DAAC's no-site and no-related-records position. Read the exact qualifications in his reply.

Read the source: DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03]

September 8, 2026 at 10:12 AM Eastern — the requester asks what the August reply covered

15 days after the preceding entry | 21 calendar days from August 18

The requester asks whether the reply was complete. He seeks records of the acknowledged inquiries and utility contact, while preserving the August request.

Read the source: The requester asks what the August reply covered [A04]

September 11, 2026 at 6:56 AM Eastern — Event canceled; records and costs discussed

3 days after the preceding entry | 24 calendar days from August 18

Johnson says the event was canceled, states that DAAC has no proposed-site records including East River Road, promises governance records after travel, and discusses a $500 point-by-point response.

Read the source: Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06]

September 11, 2026 at 11:01 AM Eastern — the requester explains what he is asking for

Later the same day | 24 calendar days from August 18

The requester asks for existing records, acknowledges the East River Road statement, keeps the $25 authorization and requests a timetable. He preserves both later requests.

Read the source: The requester explains what he is asking for [A07]

September 12, 2026 at 11:06 AM Eastern — An estimate is deferred

1 day after the preceding entry | 25 calendar days from August 18

Johnson says he cannot provide a cost estimate until he returns and meets with DAAC staff.

Read the source: An estimate is deferred [A08]

September 16, 2026 at 4:28 PM Eastern — the requester asks for dates, without duplicate work

4 days after the preceding entry | 29 calendar days from August 18

The requester asks when outstanding records will be sent, or whether none exist or some are withheld. He says he is not seeking duplicate work or records already supplied.

Read the source: The requester asks for dates, without duplicate work [A09]

September 19, 2026 at 1:10 PM Eastern — the requester gives a requested correction date

3 days after the preceding entry | 32 calendar days from August 18

The requester again seeks records, a timetable and cost information. He requests correction by September 23 at 5 p.m. before possible further review. This is his checkpoint, not a new statutory deadline.

Read the source: The requester gives a requested correction date [A10]

September 20, 2026 at 8:57 AM Eastern — Carter invites a conversation

1 day after the preceding entry | 33 calendar days from August 18

Carter says DAAC has no data-center projects and invites the requester to discuss economic development.

Read the source: Carter invites a conversation [A11]

September 20, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern — Johnson offers meeting availability

Later the same day | 33 calendar days from August 18

Johnson offers Thursday or Friday availability. This is a scheduling reply.

Read the source: Johnson offers meeting availability [A12]

September 20, 2026 at 1:28 PM Eastern — the requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records

Later the same day | 33 calendar days from August 18

The requester agrees to talk after receiving and reviewing the requested records. He says a conversation does not replace the records response.

Read the source: The requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records [A13]

September 22, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern — DAAC sends six PDFs

2 days after the preceding entry | 35 calendar days from August 18

Carter sends five document attachments and a $100 invoice. This is one combined delivery for the ongoing exchange, not a separate set for each request.

Read the source: DAAC sends six PDFs [A14]

One delivery for the ongoing exchange. The six files are listed above; this timeline does not count them again.

September 22, 2026 at 8:02 PM Eastern — the requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release

Later the same day | 35 calendar days from August 18

The requester describes the delivery as partial, requests more records within his authorization, and offers to arrange the conversation.

Read the source: The requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release [A15]

September 23, 2026 at 4:16 PM Eastern — DAAC says all requested documents were provided

1 day after the preceding entry | 36 calendar days from August 18

Carter states that the response is complete and DAAC is not working with a data-center client. He separately states terms for future estimates.

Read the source: DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

September 8 request: every reply in order

September 1: the hearing announcement raises a question

Seven calendar days before the request

Watch the September 1 hearing at 39:16. The relevant discussion runs approximately 39:16–39:51. This is the hearing where the later September 15 session was discussed.

Read the source: September 1 public-hearing video and the requester's account [C05]

September 8, 2026 at 10:24 AM Eastern — The September request

Request sent | 0 calendar days from September 8

The requester asks for records about the planned September 15 event, historical inquiries, utilities and DAAC's current operating rules. He prioritizes the event categories and requires approval before costs exceed $25.

Read the source: The September request [A05]

September 11, 2026 at 6:56 AM Eastern — Event canceled; records and costs discussed

3 days after the preceding entry | 3 calendar days from September 8

Johnson says the event was canceled, states that DAAC has no proposed-site records including East River Road, promises governance records after travel, and discusses a $500 point-by-point response.

Read the source: Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06]

September 11, 2026 at 11:01 AM Eastern — the requester explains what he is asking for

Later the same day | 3 calendar days from September 8

The requester asks for existing records, acknowledges the East River Road statement, keeps the $25 authorization and requests a timetable. He preserves both later requests.

Read the source: The requester explains what he is asking for [A07]

September 12, 2026 at 11:06 AM Eastern — An estimate is deferred

1 day after the preceding entry | 4 calendar days from September 8

Johnson says he cannot provide a cost estimate until he returns and meets with DAAC staff.

Read the source: An estimate is deferred [A08]

September 16, 2026 at 4:28 PM Eastern — the requester asks for dates, without duplicate work

4 days after the preceding entry | 8 calendar days from September 8

The requester asks when outstanding records will be sent, or whether none exist or some are withheld. He says he is not seeking duplicate work or records already supplied.

Read the source: The requester asks for dates, without duplicate work [A09]

September 19, 2026 at 1:10 PM Eastern — the requester gives a requested correction date

3 days after the preceding entry | 11 calendar days from September 8

Read the source: The requester gives a requested correction date [A10]

September 20, 2026 at 8:57 AM Eastern — Carter invites a conversation

1 day after the preceding entry | 12 calendar days from September 8

Carter says DAAC has no data-center projects and invites the requester to discuss economic development.

Read the source: Carter invites a conversation [A11]

September 20, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern — Johnson offers meeting availability

Later the same day | 12 calendar days from September 8

Johnson offers Thursday or Friday availability. This is a scheduling reply.

Read the source: Johnson offers meeting availability [A12]

September 20, 2026 at 1:28 PM Eastern — the requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records

Later the same day | 12 calendar days from September 8

The requester agrees to talk after receiving and reviewing the requested records. He says a conversation does not replace the records response.

Read the source: The requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records [A13]

September 22, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern — DAAC sends six PDFs

2 days after the preceding entry | 14 calendar days from September 8

Carter sends five document attachments and a $100 invoice. This is one combined delivery for the ongoing exchange, not a separate set for each request.

Read the source: DAAC sends six PDFs [A14]

One delivery for the ongoing exchange. The six files are listed above; this timeline does not count them again.

September 22, 2026 at 8:02 PM Eastern — the requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release

Later the same day | 14 calendar days from September 8

The requester describes the delivery as partial, requests more records within his authorization, and offers to arrange the conversation.

Read the source: The requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release [A15]

September 23, 2026 at 4:16 PM Eastern — DAAC says all requested documents were provided

1 day after the preceding entry | 15 calendar days from September 8

Carter states that the response is complete and DAAC is not working with a data-center client. He separately states terms for future estimates.

Read the source: DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

Want the question-by-question comparison?

These are plain-language summaries of the original numbered requests. The full emails preserve the exact wording and date limits.

August 18: the ten requested subjects

The original request sought data-center-related records from January 1, 2025 through August 18, 2026. These plain-language questions are summaries; the original email controls their scope.

Was land being considered or marketed for a data center?

Original category 1

What came back

DAAC said it knew of no site under consideration, proposed or marketed for that use. The later industrial-site emails do not expressly name a data center.

How to read the answer

Credit DAAC's stated answer. Do not label an industrial land inquiry a data-center project without evidence.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

Had DAAC's own or controlled property been considered for a data center?

Original category 2

What came back

The earlier seven-parcel list identified owned property and marketing status. It did not identify data-center use. The later Park West correspondence adds site information.

How to read the answer

The basic property lookup is answered for the requester's purposes. Any remaining question is about the requested data-center activity, not another ordinary parcel map.

Read the source: August 18 property-list response [P02] • The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01] • The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

Was a data center being considered in an industrial park?

Original category 3

What came back

The supplied emails discuss Park West and available power, but do not expressly identify a data-center end use.

How to read the answer

Credit the park information. Ask how it relates, if at all, to the data-center inquiries described in August.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04] • Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05]

What inquiries had developers or site selectors made?

Original category 4

What came back

Black Ink's inquiry and Carter's reply were supplied. Johnson had earlier acknowledged limited data-center inquiries.

How to read the answer

Useful correspondence arrived. Whether it accounts for the earlier acknowledged data-center inquiries is not explained.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • The requester asks what the August reply covered [A04] • Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

What did infrastructure studies or utility messages show?

Original category 5

What came back

The Park West utility email describes 4-5 MW then available, with studies and construction needed for more. The site email also discusses utilities.

How to read the answer

These answer part of the infrastructure question. Their connection to the particular SREMC contact described in August remains unclear.

What incentive programs or policies were available for data centers?

Original category 6

What came back

No document specifically addressing this category was identified among the six PDFs.

How to read the answer

A statement that no current client exists does not tell the reader whether a general policy exists. A clear answer for this category would help.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

Were incentives or public assistance discussed for a particular project?

Original category 7

What came back

No specific incentive or assistance record was identified. DAAC's statements about the absence of proposed sites and current projects must be credited.

How to read the answer

Do not assume an offer or commitment existed. Clarify whether any existing records answered this category or whether none were held.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

Was incentive availability being advertised for data-center development?

Original category 8

What came back

No document specifically answering this category was identified in the delivery.

How to read the answer

This asks about existing marketing material within the request's data-center scope. It is not proof that incentives were promised.

Read the source: The data-center request [A01] • DAAC sends six PDFs [A14] • DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

What communications took place with utilities, developers or other parties?

Original category 9

What came back

Black Ink and Satilla correspondence was supplied. It does not expressly identify a data-center end use.

How to read the answer

Credit the emails and clarify whether they cover the acknowledged data-center contacts.

Were there meeting records, agreements or official actions about data centers?

Original category 10

What came back

Read the source: The September request [A05] • DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03] • DAAC creation records [B01] • DAAC bylaws [B02]

A separate update about meeting information

Separate public-information update, observed September 24: DAAC's Facebook agenda post displayed 3:33 p.m. and identified a September 28 meeting at noon in the DAAC Office Meeting Room. The Page listed 305 West Parker Street, Baxley. The street address was not printed on the agenda itself. At approximately 10 p.m. Eastern, the checked economic-development webpage still linked an annual schedule without a meeting place; a meeting-specific agenda or update timestamp was not found on that page. These observations do not establish when a physical notice appeared or why the Facebook post was made. The requester's earlier check has no exact verified time.

Read the source: September 24 Facebook agenda post [W1] • DAAC Facebook Page and office address [W2] • Economic-development webpage checked September 24 [W3] • 2026 meeting schedule, separately obtained [C03]

This was information found separately. It was not part of DAAC's six-file response.

Read the record and draw your own conclusions

The property reply and the later records deserve clear credit. So do DAAC's statements that it had no proposed-site records within the stated scope, no current data-center client and no received presentation information. The remaining questions concern identifiable records, how the answers fit together, current governing information and costs. Readers can examine the original requests and replies and decide how well the response explains those matters. This account does not establish a hidden project, an unlawful board or anyone's motive. Additional records and factual corrections should be added with their dates and sources.

Legal references, if you want to look them up

Georgia's Records Act addresses prompt access to existing records, release of available portions, a timetable for records not initially available, cost estimates and specific grounds for withholding. It does not require a newly created report. Meeting-access rules address a different question from whether related records may be released. These standards explain the questions in this account; they do not turn this review into a legal ruling.

Read the source: Georgia Open Records Act, AG-posted text [L1] • Georgia Open Meetings Act, AG-posted text [L2]

People and terms used in this account

DAAC

The Development Authority of Appling County, the agency that received these requests.

The requester

The person who submitted the requests. This account is prepared for public review by C.L.O.C.K. Accountability.

Matt Carter

DAAC President/CEO and the sender of the property list and September records delivery.

Alex Johnson

The attorney responding on DAAC's behalf.

Satilla / SREMC

Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, the utility discussed in the correspondence.

Black Ink Development

The company whose October 2025 industrial site inquiry appears in the September delivery. The supplied emails do not state its intended end use was a data center.

The requests, replies and records

You do not have to take a summary on trust. Open the message reading copy below or use the reading PDFs. The source labels simply help connect a statement to the record behind it.

Original message wording is retained except for visibly marked requester-identity redactions. Repeated quoted email history, contact signatures and the requester's personal email address are omitted. One travel-location sentence in the scheduling reply is visibly marked as omitted. These are reading copies, not native email exports. Unredacted originals are retained privately; these downloads are public reading copies.

Read or download: the article and question guide, each request history, and the separately obtained research.

Read the story and question guide (PDF)August requests, replies and records (PDF)September request, replies and records (PDF)Separate C.L.O.C.K. research (PDF)

August 17 original property request [P01]

The requester | August 17, 2026, 6:25:57 p.m. Eastern | Original request

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Development Authority of Appling County Open Records Custodian, Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., I am requesting electronic copies of existing records identifying real property currently owned, leased, optioned, controlled, held for development, or actively marketed by the Development Authority of Appling County. Please provide any existing: 1. Property or site inventory; 2. Industrial park property inventory; 3. Parcel list; 4. Property map or GIS map; 5. Available-site inventory; 6. Site-selection or economic-development property database or spreadsheet; and 7. Similar existing record identifying Development Authority property or property being marketed or controlled by the Authority for economic development. To the extent contained in existing records, I am seeking the parcel number, acreage, location, ownership or control status, and identified or marketed development use for each property. I am requesting existing records and am not asking the Authority to create a new list, map, report, or compilation. Electronic copies are preferred over printed or paper copies. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(f), for records maintained electronically, I request production electronically and, where practicable, in the electronic format in which the records are maintained. For records that exist only in paper form, scanned electronic copies are preferred where practicable. Please do not create printed copies of records maintained electronically solely for purposes of responding to this request unless necessary. If the volume of responsive electronic records makes email delivery impractical, I am willing to provide a USB flash drive for electronic production if that would facilitate production or reduce costs. Consistent with O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(c), please use the most economical means reasonably calculated to identify and produce the requested records. If any responsive record or portion of a record is withheld or redacted, please identify the specific legal authority relied upon for withholding or redacting that record or portion and produce all remaining responsive portions. If the records cannot be produced within the three-business-day period provided by O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(b), please provide the response required by that section identifying when the records will be available and any estimated costs. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d), please notify me in advance if estimated costs will exceed $25. Thank you, [requester name redacted]

Read August 17 original property request in the August history, page 2

August 18 property-list response [P02]

Matt Carter | August 18, 2026, 2:31:03 p.m. Eastern | DAAC-supplied email; no attachments

The Development Authority of Appling County owns the following properties:

065 001 | Entrance to Rail Park (Hwy 341)

Acreage: 1.05. Use: DAAC is marketing the property

0050 073 | Rail Park

Acreage: 330. Use: DAAC is working with Robert's Civil Engineering & State on GRAD Certification.

0021 041F | West Ind. Park (Hwy 341)

Acreage: 15.04. Use: DAAC is marketing the property & site is GRAD Certified.

0021 041 | West Ind. Park (Hwy 341)

Acreage: 104.78. Use: DAAC is marketing the property & site is GRAD Certified.

0021 041E | West Ind. Park (Hwy 341)

Acreage: 15. Use: DAAC is marketing the property & site is GRAD Certified.

0021 041A | West Ind. Park (Hwy 341)

Acreage: 16.33. Use: DAAC is marketing the property & site is GRAD Certified.

0002 032 | Graham Industrial Park

Acreage: 72. Use: DAAC acquired from County in 2026.

Carter's wording and fields; layout normalized. Contact signature omitted.

Read August 18 property-list response in the August history, page 4

The requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered [R01]

The requester considers the August 17 property-identification request answered for his practical research needs. He says the supplied parcel numbers were sufficient to locate information in QPublic. Separate maps and ordinary parcel information are not carried as outstanding issues in this review. His earlier project discussion and current clarification support this reading; the original August 17 email did not contain the QPublic explanation. This note records his assessment and does not amend a sent request or withdraw any later request.

Read the requester's clarification: parcel lookup answered in the August history, page 5

The data-center request [A01]

The requester | August 18, 2026 at 3:02 PM Eastern | A01

Georgia Open Records Request — Data Center Development and Site Marketing

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Development Authority of Appling County Open Records Custodian, Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., I am requesting electronic copies of existing records created, received, or maintained from January 1, 2025 through the date of this request concerning data center development, recruitment, site evaluation, or site marketing within Appling County. Please provide existing records concerning: 1. Identification, evaluation, marketing, or recruitment of sites for data center, hyperscale data center, artificial intelligence computing, high-performance computing, or similar large-load computing development. 2. Development Authority-owned, controlled, optioned, leased, or marketed property that has been considered, evaluated, proposed, or marketed for data center development. 3. Potential or proposed data center development within an industrial park in Appling County. 4. Site-selection inquiries, requests for information, requests for proposals, site evaluations, prospect inquiries, or similar records concerning potential data center development. 5. Infrastructure studies, evaluations, correspondence, or other records concerning electrical capacity, electrical transmission, substations, natural gas, fiber-optic communications, water, wastewater, roads, emergency services, or fire protection associated with potential data center development. 6. Existing policies, schedules, guidelines, presentations, correspondence, or other records describing incentives potentially available for data center development in Appling County. 7. Records concerning incentives, tax abatements, PILOT arrangements, bonds, grants, infrastructure assistance, land assistance, or other public financial assistance considered, requested, discussed, proposed, or offered in connection with potential data center development. 8. Records concerning the availability or marketing of Development Authority incentives, rural development incentives, or similarly described incentives for data center development in Appling County. 9. Communications concerning potential data center development with Appling County, the City of Baxley, utilities, property owners, real estate brokers, developers, prospective end users, site-selection consultants, the Georgia Department of Economic Development, or other governmental entities. 10. Agendas, minutes, resolutions, votes, development agreements, inducement resolutions, bond documents, intergovernmental agreements, PILOT agreements, or other final governmental actions concerning data center development. I am requesting existing records and am not asking the Authority to create a report, answer questions, or compile information that does not presently exist. Electronic copies are preferred over printed or paper copies. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(f), for records maintained electronically, I request production electronically and, where practicable, in the electronic format in which the records are maintained. For records that exist only in paper form, scanned electronic copies are preferred where practicable. Please do not create printed copies of records maintained electronically solely for purposes of responding to this request unless necessary. If the volume of responsive electronic records makes email delivery impractical, I am willing to provide a USB flash drive for electronic production if that would facilitate production or reduce costs. Consistent with O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(c), please use the most economical means reasonably calculated to identify and produce the requested records. If any responsive record or portion of a record is withheld or redacted, please identify the specific legal authority relied upon for withholding or redacting that record or portion and produce all remaining responsive portions. If the records cannot be produced within the three-business-day period provided by O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(b), please provide the response required by that section identifying when the records will be available and any estimated costs. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d), please notify me in advance if estimated costs will exceed $25. Thank you, [requester name redacted]

Read The data-center request in the August history, page 6

DAAC acknowledges the request [A02]

Matt Carter, DAAC President/CEO | August 21, 2026 at 9:37 AM Eastern | A02

RE: Georgia Open Records Request — Data Center Development and Site Marketing

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Hi [requester name redacted], I have received your request. Due to the length of the request, I need a couple of days next week to complete the Georgia Open Records Request — Data Center Development and Site Marketing.

Read DAAC acknowledges the request in the August history, page 8

DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents [A03]

Alex Johnson, attorney for DAAC | August 24, 2026 at 3:39 PM Eastern | A03

ORR to DAAC

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[requester name redacted]: I represent the Development Authority of Appling County, and this is in response to your request of August 18. Like most every other community in the country, the Development Authority has received limited inquiries about the possibility of data center location. To be prepared to respond to any serious inquiry, we did inquire and learn from SREMC that there is insufficient electrical capacity in the county to support a data center, and it would take years of very costly utility construction to obtain such capacity. To the knowledge of the Authority: (a) no site in the county is under consideration for a data center; (b) there is no proposed or marketed site for a data center; and (c) no studies, evaluations, or proposals have been undertaken or RFPs made or received. Therefore, there are no meeting minutes or other documents related to the same in the possession of the Development Authority.

Read DAAC describes inquiries, but says it has no related documents in the August history, page 9

The requester asks what the August reply covered [A04]

The requester | September 8, 2026 at 10:12 AM Eastern | A04

Follow-Up — August 18, 2026 Open Records Request

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Johnson: I am following up regarding my August 18, 2026 Georgia Open Records Act request titled “Georgia Open Records Request — Data Center Development and Site Marketing.” On August 21, Mr. Carter acknowledged receipt of the request and stated that, due to its length, he needed “a couple of days next week” to complete it. On August 24, Mr. Johnson responded on behalf of the Development Authority of Appling County. That response stated, among other things, that the Authority had received limited inquiries concerning possible data-center location and that the Authority had made an inquiry to SREMC concerning electrical capacity. I need to clarify the status of the August 18 request. Please confirm whether Mr. Johnson's August 24 email was intended to constitute DAAC's complete and final response to the August 18 open-records request, or whether additional search, review, or production remains pending as contemplated by Mr. Carter's August 21 acknowledgment. The August 18 request was not limited to meeting minutes. It specifically requested, among other things, existing records concerning site-selection inquiries, prospect inquiries, infrastructure evaluations and correspondence, and communications with utilities, property owners, brokers, developers, prospective end users, site-selection consultants, governmental entities, and others concerning potential data-center development. Accordingly, if the August 24 response was intended as DAAC's complete response, please complete production under the original August 18 request by producing any existing non-exempt responsive records within that scope, including any existing records reflecting the limited inquiries referenced in the August 24 response and DAAC's inquiry to SREMC concerning electrical capacity. If no responsive records exist for one or more portions of the August 18 request after a search reasonably calculated to locate them, please confirm that. If responsive records exist but are being withheld or redacted, please identify the specific statutory authority relied upon and produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. If additional search or production remains pending, please provide the current status of the request, the anticipated date of production, and a reasonable production schedule. I also request that responsive records be produced on a rolling basis as they become available rather than being held until the entire request is completed. This follow-up is intended to clarify and obtain completion of my existing August 18, 2026 request. It is not intended to withdraw or narrow that request. Thank you, [requester name redacted] Baxley, Georgia [personal email address omitted]

Read the requester asks what the August reply covered in the August history, page 10

The September request [A05]

The requester | September 8, 2026 at 10:24 AM Eastern | A05

Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter: Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., I request electronic copies of the existing public records described below that are in the custody, control, or possession of the Development Authority of Appling County (“DAAC”). This request seeks existing records only. It does not ask DAAC to create explanations, answer interrogatories, or create records that do not presently exist. Because the Georgia Power presentation addressed below is scheduled for September 15, 2026, I respectfully request that Categories 1 through 4 be treated as the priority portion of this request and produced on a rolling basis as soon as available. 1. September 15, 2026 Georgia Power Presentation Please produce all existing records concerning the Georgia Power data-center presentation or meeting scheduled for September 15, 2026, including: a. records requesting, arranging, scheduling, organizing, coordinating, approving, or hosting the presentation; b. invitations, calendar entries, meeting notices, agendas, proposed agendas, presentation descriptions, location information, and scheduling communications; c. invitee lists, distribution lists, RSVP records, acceptances, declines, expected-attendance records, and other records identifying persons expected or invited to attend; d. records identifying or discussing anticipated attendance by DAAC directors, Appling County commissioners, County officials or employees, City of Baxley officials or employees, Georgia Power personnel, or any other governmental or private participant; e. communications between DAAC and Georgia Power concerning the presentation; f. communications between DAAC and Appling County or City of Baxley personnel concerning the presentation; and g. any presentation materials, slide decks, handouts, briefing documents, talking points, questions submitted in advance, background materials, or similar documents already provided to or received by DAAC. 2. Public Access, Open Meetings, Quorum, and Meeting Classification Please produce all existing non-exempt records discussing or reflecting: a. whether the September 15 presentation will be open or closed to the public; b. whether public or media attendance, observation, photography, video recording, or audio recording will be permitted; c. whether the gathering is considered subject to, excluded from, or exempt under the Georgia Open Meetings Act; d. anticipated attendance by a quorum of the DAAC board or a quorum of the Appling County Board of Commissioners; e. whether the gathering has been characterized as “multi-agency,” “multijurisdictional,” “regional,” “informational,” “training,” “executive session,” “closed meeting,” “public meeting,” or by any similar description; and f. any existing non-exempt record stating or reflecting the statutory or other legal basis relied upon for treating the gathering as closed, nonpublic, excluded, or exempt; g. whether any official business, policy, or public matter of DAAC, Appling County, or any participating governmental body is expected to be formulated, presented, discussed, or voted upon at the gathering; and h. whether any official action, recommendation, consensus, direction, commitment, or decision is expected or contemplated at or as a result of the gathering, including records reflecting that no official action is intended to be taken. This paragraph requests existing records only and does not ask DAAC to create a new legal opinion or explanation. 3. Attendance and Quorum Records Please produce existing records identifying: a. which DAAC directors have indicated that they will attend or will not attend the September 15 presentation; b. which Appling County commissioners have indicated that they will attend or will not attend; c. whether City of Baxley officials have been invited or are expected to attend; d. the anticipated number of DAAC directors and county commissioners expected to be present; and e. any discussion concerning whether attendance would constitute a quorum of either governing body. 4. Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Records Please produce any existing NDA, nondisclosure agreement, confidentiality agreement, confidentiality acknowledgment, confidentiality instruction, confidentiality provision, or similar restriction that applies or has been proposed to apply to: a. the September 15 Georgia Power presentation; b. any proposed or prospective data-center project in Appling County; c. any data-center developer, site selector, broker, utility, project code, site, or prospect; or d. any DAAC director, officer, employee, attorney, consultant, contractor, County official, or other person acting for or with DAAC in connection with such activity. Please also produce existing non-exempt records concerning the execution, approval, scope, duration, release, termination, or asserted effect of any such agreement. 5. Data-Center Inquiries and Prospect Activity For the period January 1, 2025 through the date this request is received, please produce existing records reflecting inquiries, contacts, solicitations, prospect activity, site-selection activity, or expressions of interest involving the possible location or development of a data center, hyperscale facility, artificial-intelligence or high-performance-computing facility, cloud-computing facility, or comparable large-load computing facility in Appling County. This includes responsive emails, text messages, letters, notes, prospect logs, CRM entries, project-code records, call notes, site-submission records, and communications with developers, brokers, site selectors, utilities, consultants, state agencies, property owners, or other governmental entities. This request includes responsive communications conducted through personal devices or accounts to the extent such communications constitute public records under Georgia law. 6. Utility and Large-Load Communications For the same period, please produce existing records concerning data-center or other large-load electric-service capacity in Appling County, including communications with Georgia Power, Satilla Rural Electric Membership Corporation, Georgia Transmission Corporation, the City of Baxley, or another utility or governmental entity regarding: – available electrical capacity; – requested or anticipated load; – substations or transmission infrastructure; – generation or interconnection; – feasibility; – service schedules; – expansion requirements; – estimated infrastructure costs; or – estimated time required to provide service. Please include existing records relating to DAAC's inquiry to SREMC concerning available electrical capacity and any records supporting or reflecting the reported conclusion that substantial additional time or expense would be required to provide increased capacity. 7. East River Road / Privately Owned Property and Site-Selection Activity For the period August 1, 2026 through the date this request is received, please produce existing records referencing property on or near East River Road in connection with: – a data center or comparable large-load computing facility; – site selection, site evaluation, or site marketing; – electric, water, wastewater, or other utility capacity; – economic-development incentives; – acquisition, option, lease, easement, access, or other potential property-control arrangements; or – communications with the private property owner or owners, brokers, site selectors, utilities, consultants, governmental entities, or prospective developers. This request does not assert that DAAC owns or controls any East River Road property, nor does it assert that any such property has been selected, committed, optioned, or approved for a data-center project. It seeks only existing DAAC records, if any, concerning privately owned property in that area in connection with prospective data-center activity. 8. DAAC Governance and Operating Rules Please produce the current versions of the following records: a. DAAC bylaws and amendments; b. current board roster and director terms; c. the 2026 regular-meeting schedule; d. policies, bylaws, or resolutions governing regular, special, or called meetings; e. policies concerning public attendance or public comment; f. executive-session procedures; g. delegation-of-authority resolutions or policies; h. contract and signature authority; i. NDA or confidentiality policies, if any; and j. DAAC's current Open Records Officer designation and records-request policy, if any. 9. Search and Custodian Records Relating to the Prior Data-Center Request With respect to my August 18, 2026 open-records request concerning data-center development and site marketing, please produce existing records documenting the search undertaken for responsive records, including: a. search or preservation instructions; b. requests sent to custodians; c. search logs or search terms, if maintained; d. accounts, repositories, or devices identified for review; and e. non-exempt communications concerning the identification, search, collection, or production of responsive records. Please also include responsive public records maintained by contractors, consultants, or other persons performing a service or function for or on behalf of DAAC to the extent those records are subject to the Georgia Open Records Act. Production, Timing, and Costs Please produce responsive records electronically by email or secure download link and, where reasonably available, in their native electronic format. I request rolling production. In particular, please produce responsive records from Categories 1 through 4 as soon as they are available rather than withholding those records until the remaining categories have been completed. Under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71, if responsive records are available, they are to be produced within the applicable statutory period. If responsive records exist but cannot be produced within that period, please provide the required description of the records and timetable for production and produce them as soon as practicable. If DAAC withholds all or any portion of a responsive record, please identify the specific Code section, subsection, and paragraph relied upon for the withholding and produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. I do not authorize costs exceeding $25.00 without my prior written approval. If the estimated cost will exceed $25.00, please do not incur costs above that amount. Instead, please provide an itemized estimate showing, to the extent reasonably practicable, the estimated cost attributable to each numbered category above. Please prioritize Categories 1 through 4 when determining what can be searched and produced within the $25.00 authorization. Nothing in this request should be construed as asserting that any particular data-center project, developer, site, confidentiality agreement, quorum, commitment, exemption, or legal violation exists. The purpose of the request is to obtain the existing public record so those matters can be evaluated accurately. Respectfully, [requester name redacted] Baxley, Georgia [personal email address omitted]

Read The September request in the September history, page 3

Event canceled; records and costs discussed [A06]

Alex Johnson, attorney for DAAC | September 11, 2026 at 6:56 AM Eastern | A06

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[requester name redacted]: With respect to your recent open records requests, please be advised as follows: 1. Inasmuch as the proposed September 15 meeting was cancelled due to the prospect of its being turned into a one-sided debate and rally by those unilaterally opposed to data center activity, instead of the planned regional information meeting which is exempt from Georgia open meetings and records laws under OCGA Sec. 50-14-1(a)(3)(B)(ii), there is no need to further respond. 2.The Development Authority has no records related to any proposed data center site in Appling County, specifically any site on East River Road. 1. If the Authority did have any such records, and in the event it should in the future, disclosure of meeting minutes would be restricted under OCGA Sec. 50-18-72(46). 2. Records pertaining to Development Authority governance and operating rules will be provided upon my return from a current overseas trip. If a point-by-point response is desired, I expect the costs would far exceed your $25 limit. Given the salaries of the two Development Authority employees and oversight by counsel for the Authority, I would give a conservative estimate of $500.

Read Event canceled; records and costs discussed in the August history, page 12

The requester explains what he is asking for [A07]

The requester | September 11, 2026 at 11:01 AM Eastern | A07

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your response. I want to eliminate any ambiguity concerning my September 8, 2026 Georgia Open Records Act request and what remains outstanding. My request remains active and is not withdrawn, narrowed, superseded, or satisfied except to the extent DAAC has actually produced responsive records or has provided a legally sufficient response identifying records or portions of records being withheld and the specific statutory authority for doing so. I am requesting existing public records. I am not requesting a point-by-point narrative response, answers to interrogatories, a newly created report, or a legal opinion. Accordingly, the anticipated cost of preparing a "point-by-point response" is not responsive to what I requested. 1. Cancellation of the September 15 gathering does not withdraw the records request DAAC's cancellation of the proposed September 15 gathering does not withdraw or extinguish my request for records that existed when DAAC received it on September 8. Categories 1 through 4 seek existing records concerning the planning, scheduling, organization, invitations, anticipated attendance, communications, public-access determination, meeting classification, confidentiality restrictions, and materials associated with that gathering. Please search for and produce those existing records. If DAAC contends that any responsive record or portion is exempt from disclosure, please identify the specific Code section, subsection, and paragraph relied upon and produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. A determination that the gathering would not occur does not constitute production of, or a response as to, records concerning its planning and organization. 2. DAAC's asserted Open Meetings Act classification does not answer the records request I acknowledge DAAC's position that the planned September 15 gathering would have fallen within O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(a)(3)(B)(ii). I am not presently asking DAAC to provide additional legal argument concerning that position. I am requesting the existing records that document the circumstances surrounding the proposed gathering, including the records requested in Categories 1 through 4. Those records will permit the underlying facts to speak for themselves. 3. DAAC's statement concerning East River Road I acknowledge and will rely upon DAAC's representation that: "The Development Authority has no records related to any proposed data center site in Appling County, specifically any site on East River Road." For purposes of this request, I will preserve that as DAAC's formal representation concerning the existence of responsive records in DAAC's custody, control, or possession relating to that portion of my request. This acknowledgment does not withdraw or narrow any other category of the request. 4. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(46) Your response also states that, if DAAC possessed certain records, disclosure of meeting minutes would be restricted under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(46). I am not requesting disclosure of material that is lawfully exempt. However, a statutory exemption must be applied to responsive records or portions of records to which the exemption actually applies. It does not constitute a blanket response to the remainder of the request. Therefore, for each responsive record or portion DAAC withholds, please identify the specific Code section, subsection, and paragraph relied upon and produce all reasonably segregable non-exempt portions. 5. The approximately $500 estimate is not authorized I do not authorize approximately $500 in charges, and I do not authorize DAAC to incur costs exceeding the $25 authorization contained in my September 8 request without my prior written approval. My request expressly instructed DAAC that, if estimated costs exceeded $25, DAAC should not incur those additional costs and should instead provide an itemized estimate, to the extent reasonably practicable, by numbered category. My request also directed DAAC to prioritize Categories 1 through 4. Please proceed within those instructions. If DAAC maintains that lawful charges will exceed $25, please provide an itemized good-faith estimate identifying: 1. the specific search, retrieval, redaction, copying, or production activity for which a charge is proposed; 2. the estimated time required for each chargeable activity; 3. the hourly rate used to calculate each charge; 4. the position or classification of the employee whose rate is being used; 5. the numbered request category or categories to which each estimated charge relates; and 6. any amount included for attorney review, attorney oversight, or other legal services, together with the specific statutory authority DAAC contends permits that amount to be charged to me under the Georgia Open Records Act. Until I approve costs above $25 in writing, please do not incur them. That limitation does not constitute authorization to suspend production of responsive records that can be produced within the existing $25 authorization. Please use the most economical means reasonably calculated to identify and produce responsive, non-exempt records, apply the statutory first quarter-hour without charge where applicable, and proceed with the priority Categories 1 through 4 as previously requested. 6. Governance and operating records You stated that records concerning DAAC governance and operating rules "will be provided upon my return from a current overseas trip." Thank you for confirming that those records will be produced. Please provide a specific anticipated production date or, if a specific date cannot presently be provided, a definite production timetable. Your absence should not leave the request without a production schedule. 7. Rolling production remains requested Please do not hold completed or readily available responsive records while other portions of the request are being searched, reviewed, or evaluated. Produce responsive, non-exempt records on a rolling basis as they become available, beginning with Categories 1 through 4. 8. What remains required To avoid any further misunderstanding, I am requesting that DAAC now complete the following: – search for and produce the existing responsive records requested on September 8; – continue processing Categories 1 through 4 notwithstanding cancellation of the September 15 gathering; – produce responsive, non-exempt records that can be produced within my existing $25 authorization; – provide rolling production rather than holding available records until the entire request is complete; – provide an itemized estimate before incurring any cost exceeding $25; – separately identify any proposed attorney-related charge and the statutory authority asserted for charging it to me; – identify by Code section, subsection, and paragraph the legal basis for each withholding and produce reasonably segregable non-exempt portions; and – provide a definite production date or timetable for the governance and operating-rule records you have stated will be produced. If DAAC's position is instead that no responsive records exist for a particular numbered category, please state that clearly for that category. If responsive records exist but are being withheld, please identify the applicable statutory exemption with the specificity required by the Open Records Act. If responsive records exist and are not exempt, please produce them. If responsive records exist but cannot yet be produced, please provide the applicable production timetable and lawful estimated cost, if any. That should resolve each category without requiring DAAC to create a narrative response or answer interrogatories. For clarity, I am not consenting to closure of this request based upon cancellation of the September 15 gathering, the approximately $500 estimate, or the general citation of an exemption. Nor should this correspondence be construed as a withdrawal or waiver of any portion of my September 8 request or my separate August 18, 2026 Open Records Act request. I am simply asking DAAC to complete its obligations under the Georgia Open Records Act and produce the public records to which I am entitled, subject to any exemption actually applicable to a particular record or portion thereof. Please proceed with production and provide the outstanding production timetable and any properly itemized cost estimate. Respectfully, [requester name redacted] Baxley, Georgia [personal email address omitted]

Read the requester explains what he is asking for in the August history, page 13

An estimate is deferred [A08]

Alex Johnson, attorney for DAAC | September 12, 2026 at 11:06 AM Eastern | A08

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

I will not be able to provide a cost estimate until I return from Egypt and can meet with DAAC staff.

Read An estimate is deferred in the August history, page 17

The requester asks for dates, without duplicate work [A09]

The requester | September 16, 2026 at 4:28 PM Eastern | A09

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter: I am following up solely to clarify the production timetable for my outstanding Development Authority open-records requests. I am copying Mr. Johnson because he has been responding on behalf of the Authority. I understand from Mr. Johnson's recent correspondence that he is presently traveling abroad and intends to confer with Development Authority staff upon his return. I have no objection to his travel and am not requesting that he personally review or process records while he is away. His absence, however, does not provide me with a production timetable for the Authority's outstanding response. At this point, I am not expanding either request or asking for another narrative response. I am simply asking the Development Authority to provide definite production information for the portions of the requests that remain outstanding. For each outstanding category, please provide one of the following: 1. The date on which the responsive records will be produced; 2. If production will occur in installments, the date of the first production and the anticipated timetable for the remaining production; 3. A statement that no responsive records exist; or 4. If records are being withheld, the specific statutory basis applicable to the records or portions being withheld. Where a cost estimate is required before production can proceed, please provide the itemized estimate and identify the production to which that estimate applies. I recognize that some subjects in my September 8 request overlap with and narrow matters addressed in my August request. I am not asking the Authority to duplicate work or reproduce records already provided. My objective is simply to obtain a clear disposition and date-certain production schedule for the records that remain outstanding. Please also produce any responsive records that are presently available rather than holding available records pending completion of the entire production. Thank you, [requester name redacted]

Read the requester asks for dates, without duplicate work in the August history, page 18

The requester gives a requested correction date [A10]

The requester | September 19, 2026 at 1:10 PM Eastern | A10

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Johnson: **Please treat this correspondence as formal notice of unresolved production and timetable deficiencies concerning my outstanding DAAC open-records requests, and of my intention to pursue further review if those deficiencies are not corrected.** My September 8 request expressly sought DAAC’s current bylaws and other governance and operating-rule records under Category 8. It also expressly requested rolling production. My September 11 response reiterated that completed or readily available records should not be held while other portions were being searched, reviewed, or evaluated. On September 11, Mr. Johnson stated: > “Records pertaining to Development Authority governance and operating rules will be provided upon my return from a current overseas trip.” On September 12, Mr. Johnson stated that he could not provide a cost estimate until returning from Egypt and meeting with DAAC staff. DAAC was included in both communications. My September 16 follow-up was addressed directly to the Authority, with counsel copied, and requested definite production information and release of presently available records. I have received no subsequent response. **The postponement at issue was expressly communicated. It is not an inference I am drawing solely from silence.** Governance-record production and provision of the cost estimate were made dependent on counsel’s return. I dispute the necessity of that condition. The correspondence has not identified what prevented DAAC staff from proceeding with available, nonexempt governance records, or why a meaningful production timetable could not be supplied while counsel was away. My concern is not counsel’s travel or DAAC’s decision to obtain legal advice. It is the Authority’s handling of its outstanding statutory obligations. **A stated intention to act after counsel returns does not explain why the Authority’s response must remain unresolved in the meantime.** O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(b)(1)(A) requires agencies to produce records that can be located and produced within the initial three-business-day period. For existing responsive records unavailable within that period, the agency must provide a description and production timeline and make the records available as soon as practicable. I recognize that applicable exemptions and lawful cost arrangements must also be considered. **The response concerning governance records supplied neither a production date nor an estimated interval. I consider that an apparent deficiency under the statutory production-timeline requirement.** The correspondence also leaves unresolved whether available portions have been delayed pending work on other portions, despite my repeated rolling-production instructions. I am requesting existing public records—not a newly created report, a point-by-point legal opinion, or a narrative defense of DAAC’s decisions. My requests already accommodate legitimate review, applicable exemptions, lawful charges, and production in installments. Those provisions should be used to resolve the request, not leave its disposition indefinite. Please take the following corrective action by **5:00 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, September 23, 2026**: **1. Release available records on a rolling basis.** Produce responsive, nonexempt records presently available for release within my existing cost authorization, including the requested governance records to the extent they can be produced on that basis. Do not hold available records merely because other portions remain under review. My existing prioritization of Categories 1–4 remains in place; this does not withdraw or waive the governance category or any other outstanding portion. **2. Provide a definite disposition and meaningful production timetable.** For existing records not yet produced, identify the outstanding records or categories and provide an anticipated production date or meaningful timetable, including the first installment and remaining production where appropriate. Identify any remaining processing step preventing release of the governance records. Where no responsive records exist, state that clearly. Where records or portions are withheld, identify the applicable statutory authority by Code section, subsection, and paragraph, and release the nonexempt portions. **3. Resolve the outstanding cost question.** If DAAC relies on estimated costs to defer work, identify the affected production and provide a good-faith estimate calculated under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(c) and (d). As previously requested, please itemize the proposed work, estimated time, applicable rates, and request categories to the extent reasonably practicable. Separately identify any proposed attorney-related charge and the statutory basis asserted for charging it to me. In particular, identify any cost that prevents separate production of the governance records. The **$25 authorization in my September 8 request remains unchanged**. I have not authorized approximately $500 or expenditures exceeding that authorization without my written approval. The earlier estimate for a broader “point-by-point response” did not separately identify the work or costs associated with producing the governance documents; that question remains unresolved. This correspondence does not expand, replace, withdraw, or waive any outstanding portion of my August 18 or September 8 request. **The September 23 date is an opportunity to correct the identified deficiencies before escalation—not agreement to restart the original statutory periods, excuse prior noncompliance, or hold available records until that date.** If the identified deficiencies remain unresolved after that deadline, **I intend to submit a DAAC-specific complaint to the Georgia Attorney General’s Open Government Mediation Program, supported by the correspondence, for review of the alleged noncompliance.** I will also evaluate the enforcement remedies available under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73. Please preserve records responsive to both requests and records documenting their handling, including relevant electronic communications, while this dispute remains unresolved. This preservation request does not expand the records presently requested for production. **I am not withdrawing these requests, and I will continue pursuing the outstanding records through the available lawful channels.** My objective is production of the public records and a legally sufficient disposition of anything not produced. Another indefinite assurance that action will occur later will not resolve the deficiencies identified here. Respectfully, [requester name redacted] Baxley, Georgia [personal email address omitted]

Read the requester gives a requested correction date in the August history, page 20

Carter invites a conversation [A11]

Matt Carter, DAAC President/CEO | September 20, 2026 at 8:57 AM Eastern | A11

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[requester name redacted], The Development Authority of Appling County doesn’t have any data center projects. I would welcome a conversation about economic development during business hours. Would this be an option for you?

Read Carter invites a conversation in the August history, page 23

Johnson offers meeting availability [A12]

Alex Johnson, attorney for DAAC | September 20, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern | A12

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[Travel-location sentence omitted from this public reading copy.] Available Thursday or Friday.

Read Johnson offers meeting availability in the August history, page 24

The requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records [A13]

The requester | September 20, 2026 at 1:28 PM Eastern | A13

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your responses and the invitation to discuss economic development. **I am fully open to that conversation once the requested records have been produced and I have had a reasonable opportunity to review them.** Documented information is essential to a productive discussion. Reviewing the records beforehand would allow me to ask informed questions, avoid misunderstandings, and participate with a clear understanding of the matters we would be discussing. I note Mr. Carter’s statement that DAAC does not have any data-center projects. My requests are not limited to active or approved projects. They also include DAAC’s current bylaws and other governance and operating-rule records, records concerning arrangements for the proposed September 15 Georgia Power presentation, and the other existing records described in my requests. Your replies do not address the outstanding production, timetable, and cost matters identified in my September 19 email. Please address those matters in writing, including release of available nonexempt records within my existing authorization, a meaningful timetable for outstanding production, and the applicable cost information. For clarity, my willingness to have a conversation does not replace the requested records response or constitute my agreement to extend the September 23, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern correction deadline stated in my September 19 email. Records production and review should come first; we can then coordinate a mutually convenient time to speak. My August 18 and September 8 requests remain unchanged, including the existing production priorities and the $25 authorization limit stated in the September 8 request. This message does not expand either request or authorize additional charges. Respectfully, [requester name redacted]

Read the requester welcomes a conversation after reviewing records in the August history, page 25

DAAC sends six PDFs [A14]

Matt Carter, DAAC President/CEO | September 22, 2026 at 9:35 AM Eastern | A14

RE: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[requester name redacted], The DAAC has the following information that you have requested: 1. DAAC Resolution Creation 1973. 2. DAAC By-Laws 2016 3. Email from Georgia Power to discuss board member training that is required annually. The training was cancelled. I have not received any presentation information from Georgia Power. 4. One email (2025) from a phone conversation with Calvin & Nikhil with Black Ink Development. They had a large request for power usage that Satilla EMC could not serve. They have not continued to look at Appling County that DAAC is aware of. 5. See the attached email from Satilla EMC. 6. DAAC has spent 5 hours researching your request and the invoice is attached. 7. I would like to have an opportunity to meet with you about economic development for one main reason. The economic development process eliminates projects that do not fit in a community. The example above proves it. Georgia Power and EMCs will not provide the upgrades to the grid for the potential customer. They are both (GP and EMCs) committed to take care of the current customers.

Read DAAC sends six PDFs in the August history, page 26

The requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release [A15]

The requester | September 22, 2026 at 8:02 PM Eastern | A15

Re: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

Mr. Carter, Thank you for beginning production and for providing the initial set of records today. For clarity, today’s partial production does not alter the September 23, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern deadline stated in my September 19 correspondence for correction of the outstanding production, timetable, and cost issues. I appreciate that production has now begun, and I ask that available responsive records continue to be released on a rolling basis while the remaining portions are addressed. Please continue rolling production of responsive records as they become available, consistent with my prior requests. My existing $25 authorization limit remains unchanged. If additional production would cause the cost to exceed that authorization, please pause any additional cost-incurring work and provide a clear, concise, statutorily based itemized estimate identifying the remaining responsive records or categories, the work necessary to produce them, the applicable rate or rates, and the estimated cost of the remaining production before proceeding. I also appreciate your invitation to have a conversation regarding economic development. I am willing to meet and discuss the process, the records produced, and the matters raised by my requests. Please let me know what availability you have later this week or next week, and I will do my best to coordinate a mutually convenient time. Thank you again for beginning production. I look forward to reviewing the additional records as rolling production continues. Respectfully, [requester name redacted] Baxley, Georgia

Read the requester thanks DAAC and asks for continued release in the August history, page 35

DAAC says all requested documents were provided [A16]

Matt Carter, DAAC President/CEO | September 23, 2026 at 4:16 PM Eastern | A16

RE: Georgia Open Records Request — September 15 Georgia Power Presentation and Data Center Records

Requester-identifying information is redacted in this reading copy.

[requester name redacted], The Development Authority of Appling County (DAAC) has provided you with all of the documents that has been requested. DAAC is NOT working with a data center client! For future estimates, it is $20 per hour plus legal cost incurred for the requested information.

Read DAAC says all requested documents were provided in the August history, page 36

DAAC creation records [B01]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Original filename: Authority Resolution Creation 1973.pdf

Historical activation and certification documents from 1973.

What it answers: Helps establish DAAC's origins and powers.

What it does not settle: Does not supply a current named board roster or establish that no changes occurred afterward.

Read DAAC creation records in the September history, page 24

DAAC bylaws [B02]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Original filename: BY-LAWS DA 2016.pdf

Five pages of text and one blank page. The filename says 2016; the adoption statement says April 19, 1974.

What it answers: Supplies rules on the board, powers, meetings, committees, officers and amendments.

What it does not settle: Needs confirmation that this is the complete version in force today, together with any changes.

Read DAAC bylaws in the September history, page 31

Georgia Power training-planning email [B03]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Original filename: Development Authority Training_ 9_15.pdf

An August 24, 2026 email arranging a call about upcoming training and an EMC representative.

What it answers: Provides an actual planning record for the event described in the delivery.

What it does not settle: Does not provide the full invitation, attendance, public-access or event-material record requested.

Read Georgia Power training-planning email in the September history, page 38

Black Ink site-selection correspondence [B04]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Original filename: RE_ Site-Selection Support & Utility Contacts _ Parcels near Plant Hatch _ Appling County.pdf

October 2025 emails asking about industrial land and substantial power capacity, followed by Carter's site information and utility introduction.

What it answers: Documents a prospect inquiry, DAAC's reply and utility coordination.

What it does not settle: Does not identify a data-center end use. Two named site PDFs were not included in the September set.

Read Black Ink site-selection correspondence in the August history, page 28

Satilla's Park West capacity email [B05]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Original filename: Baxley Park West EMC Response.pdf

An October 21, 2025 email describing 4-5 megawatts then available and studies and construction needed for more.

What it answers: Documents a real limit on immediately available capacity and a two-to-three-year construction timeline for more.

What it does not settle: Does not itself explain a blanket refusal to upgrade, who would pay, or whether this is the inquiry Johnson described in August.

Read Satilla's Park West capacity email in the August history, page 32

Records invoice [B06]

DAAC-supplied attachment received September 22.

Public filename: Records invoice (requester name redacted).pdf

Invoice 1116: five hours at $20 per hour, totaling $100.

What it answers: States the hours, rate and amount billed for records work.

What it does not settle: Does not allocate the work by request or explain how the charge relates to the $25 authorization.

Read Records invoice in the August history, page 34

June 2024 appointment announcement [C01]

Separate C.L.O.C.K. research. Not part of DAAC's six-file delivery.

A June 2024 announcement names David Douglas as chair and nine others as board members. It is a dated published list, not a current voting roster.

Read June 2024 appointment announcement in the separate research PDF, page 2

Open the public source

January 2007 community assessment [C02]

Separate C.L.O.C.K. research. Not part of DAAC's six-file delivery.

The 2007 assessment describes nine members. The research PDF includes the cover and original PDF page 87 / printed ED-35. It is not a current governing amendment.

Read January 2007 community assessment in the separate research PDF, page 4

Open the public source

2026 meeting schedule, separately obtained [C03]

Separate C.L.O.C.K. research. Not part of DAAC's six-file delivery.

The independently obtained annual schedule supplies dates and a noon meeting time. The reviewed copy does not state a meeting place.

Read 2026 meeting schedule, separately obtained in the separate research PDF, page 6

Open the public source

December 2025 County appointment minutes [C04]

Separate C.L.O.C.K. research. Not part of DAAC's six-file delivery.

County minutes from December 2, 2025 record a County-seat reappointment on original page 2. It does not establish a complete current board.

Read December 2025 County appointment minutes in the separate research PDF, page 7

Open the public source

September 1 public-hearing video and the requester's account [C05]

Separate hearing source and requester explanation. Not supplied in DAAC's six PDFs.

Watch the September 1 hearing at 39:16. The relevant discussion runs approximately 39:16–39:51. This is the hearing where the later September 15 session was discussed.

Video source: 2026 09 01 Appling Co Board of Commissioners Called Mtg Public Hearing 180 Day Moratorium, published on YouTube by Appling County GA Commissioners.

Seven calendar days after that hearing, the requester sent the September 8 records request. The invitation, expected attendance and public-access records were priorities because the event was scheduled for September 15. Three days after the request, on September 11, Johnson said it had been canceled and relied on the regional-information-meeting exception.

The saved captions were checked; the original audio and individual speaker identifications have not been independently verified in this review.

Read September 1 public-hearing video and the requester's account in the September history, page 2

Watch the cited hearing passage on YouTube, starting at 39:16

September 24 Facebook agenda post [W1]

Open the public source

DAAC Facebook Page and office address [W2]

Open the public source

Economic-development webpage checked September 24 [W3]

Open the public source

Georgia Open Records Act, AG-posted text [L1]

Official legal reference, kept separate from the documents sent by DAAC. This account is not an Attorney General or court finding.

Open the public source