Story 2 · DAAC and the Chamber · What the Records Show · 4 of 8
Follow the appropriation, the service relationship and the City’s separate budget
Start at the County appropriation, then look at the Chamber’s reported service revenue and the City’s separate proposals. These are connected questions, not yet a fully traced chain of the same dollars.
DAAC's appropriation is one part of the economic-development budget
The County worksheet separates the $167,000 proposal into four amounts:
| Entry | FY2027 proposal |
|---|---|
| Development Authority | $140,000 |
| RDC dues | $12,000 |
| Community Connection | $5,000 |
| Community Engagement Coordinator | $10,000 |
| Total | $167,000 |
Source: full County packet, part 2, PDF page 13, printed page 28. These are proposed appropriations, not proof of payments. Source 2
The next step is to understand DAAC's own finances. How much does it receive from County support and other sources? What income or reserves are restricted? What obligations must it meet? Does it transfer money back to the County? We cannot confirm from the records reviewed that DAAC retains all earned revenue or returns none to the County. Its financial statements, receipts and transfer records are needed before making that claim. Source 9
The Chamber reports a paid relationship with DAAC
The Chamber's Forms 990 describe support services provided to DAAC and list the resulting revenue separately from dues:
| Calendar year | DAAC support-service revenue | Membership-dues revenue |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | $102,822 | $60,134 |
| 2024 | $87,470 | $53,841 |
Source: Part III, lines 4a and 4c, of each return. These are historical calendar-year figures; they are not FY2027 estimates. Source 4
This establishes that membership dues are not the Chamber's only reported source of revenue. It does not establish which DAAC receipts financed the contract payments. The County appropriation and Chamber revenue cannot yet be presented as a fully traced movement of the same dollars.
Published listings place DAAC and the Chamber at 305 West Parker Street without suite numbers, and the Chamber website lists one phone number for the Chamber, development authority and tourism. A resident describes divided offices in the building. The address listings are verified; the physical layout and financial terms of occupancy are not. Source 9
The relevant questions concern the agreement: what services are included, how staff time and office expenses are divided, what price DAAC agreed to pay, and what evidence shows the work was delivered. Shared premises and a paid service relationship do not, by themselves, establish improper spending.
DAAC, City DDA and the Chamber: what distinct work does each perform?
The 2023 *Baxley Downtown Visioning and Design* report states that the City's DDA was created by City Council resolution in 1982 and reactivated in 2019. That supports the recalled reactivation year. We have not located the original 2019 action to establish its exact date, terms or initial funding. Source 6
The City's posted FY2027 summary includes $25,000 for “Special Events – DDA” and $13,500 for “Contributions.” It does not identify the Chamber or DAAC as recipients. The combined $38,500 is the sum of two categories, not a verified payment to one organization. We also have not confirmed that DDA operates from the Chamber/DAAC building. Source 5, 10
Multiple governments can fund different services or share project costs. Testing for duplicate payment requires matching the agreements, service periods, invoices and payment records. The posted summary cannot establish whether the same obligation was paid twice. We cannot confirm duplicate funding or rule it out from this summary alone. Source 10
The records establish a paid relationship, but do not trace the same County dollars through it.
Continue: Where does the payment trail stop? →← Previous: Key Facts