Follow the County accounting, regional support and IRS filings

The County’s worksheets are the starting point. Regional dues provide context; the IRS returns then raise questions that require transaction records to resolve.

The County records contain both expenses and reimbursements

Subtracting the two named expenses from projected reimbursement gives $100,000 − $95,000 = $5,000. That limited comparison does not establish a profit; the agreement and full accounting are missing. Equally, the $95,000 expense total alone does not establish a subsidy. Source 1

The revenue worksheet reports $112,976.66 in FY2026 reimbursement through August. Corresponding Seven Rivers year-to-date expense cells are blank. Blank cells cannot establish zero spending, so the pages do not yield an actual net cost. Source 1

Regional support needs a fair comparison

Pierce’s approved 2026 budget lists $750 in Seven Rivers dues. Charlton’s 2025 budget report lists $750. These establish budgeted support outside Appling, not cleared payments or a complete account of regional contributions. We cannot compare those dues to Appling’s salary lines as if both were net subsidies. Source 5

The tax returns raise a payroll classification question

Sources: each return, Parts V and IX. The 2022 return also reports $1,000 in employee benefits. Source 2–4

Inference to test: an outside payroll arrangement may explain those entries. We cannot confirm that explanation or identify the County reimbursements from the returns alone. Calendar-year IRS figures also cannot be matched directly to the County’s October–September fiscal year. The needed connection is a dated ledger showing payments to Appling and how they were classified. Source 6

Resources and reported expenses require context

Seven Rivers reports $668,096 in cash and savings combined for 2024, calculated as $563,910 + $104,186. It separately reports $690,036 in loans receivable. Its $1,466,655 in net assets includes restricted funds and noncash assets; describing that amount as spare money would mislead readers. The audit notes and grant terms are needed to explain availability. Source 2

Schedule O breaks the $139,108 other-expense entry into $176,960 project expense + $148 taxes and fees − $38,000 from an asset-disposal entry. The disposal adjustment lowers reported expenses. The filing does not explain the underlying transaction in sufficient detail to assess it. Source 2, Schedule O

The organization reports independent financial audits in 2023 and 2024. Both returns also say the complete Form 990 was not provided to every governing-body member before filing; Schedule O states “No review conducted.” This concerns review of the return, not whether an audit occurred. The audit reports themselves have not been examined. Source 2, 3

The same returns report a written conflict policy and annual interest disclosures, but answer no to regular and consistent monitoring and enforcement of the policy. That supports a question about financial oversight. It does not prove an actual undisclosed conflict. [2, 3, Part VI]