Has CCA supplied a key document required by the contract?
If not, is the contract still valid?
According to “SCHEDULE 1.6.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE”
CCA was supposed to provide to VLCIA
Submission of Preliminary Specifications (Section 1.6.1)
No later than 6 months after receipt of the Survey
CCA did provide a
Title Objection Letter
19 November 2010,
and that was due “within 30 days of receipt of the Survey”.
So these Preliminary Specifications were due
about six months ago.
Let’s see them!
If those specifications have not been received by VLCIA,
maybe the contract with CCA is no longer valid.
Or maybe VLCIA already received
and is moving on with implementing the project.
Seems to me the community should be informed, one way or the other.
184.108.40.206. Third Extension Term.
The Authority shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain an option
for a third extension term of twelve (12) months
(the “Third Extension Term“).
In the event the Authority is able to obtain such extension option
on terms and conditions such that any required earnest money to be paid
by the Company in connection with the exercise of such extension option does not
exceed $75,000, and there is no increase of the price of the Site
or any other payments not already required by the Option Agreement,
then the Authority shall enter into a written agreement
(the “Third Extension Term“)
with the Seller reflecting the terms and conditions of such extension option….
What happens if the Authority does not provide such an extension option?
Continue reading →
CCA and VLCIA signed way back on 17 August 2009,
I see nothing that says the Industrial Authority can’t talk about CCA
in general terms.
And I see a lot of things that a governmental entity by state law
can’t hide if the public requests them.
And that VLCIA has now revealed.
Which means the Industrial Authority has violated that agreement because
state law required it to.
So what does that say about the validity of other contracts VLCIA
has signed with CCA?
And what does it say about the practice of this governmental entity
signing confidentiality agreements?
That agreement includes this legal boilerplate:
it will use any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information to
which it has access solely for the purpose set forth herein and that it will
indefinitely protect the confidentiality of such information and will not
directly or indirectly disclose, reproduce, distribute, transmit or transfer
by any means in any form any confidential documents, information
and/or trade secrets that AUTHORITY may have or acquire during the
There’s nothing in there that says VLCIA can’t even say in their board
meetings that Project Excel is a private prison for CCA.
And outside board meetings, some board members have no reluctance to
Confidentiality agreements like that are normal between two business entities.
They seem a little odd between a business entity and a governmental agency.
For example, that Agreement continues:
For purposes of this Agreement, “confidential, proprietary, or trade
secret information” includes, but is not limited to, marketing materials,
conceptual site drawings and images, form contract agreements, the
identities of business contacts and the relationships developed with
such contacts during the Evaluation Period, proposed terms of purchase
and sale, if any….
Yet many of those things are by their nature public records that VLCIA
is required to hand over in response to an open records request,
such as the one Matt Flumerfelt made which produced documents such as these:
Continue reading →
“It’s forthcoming. I can’t tell you anything because quite frankly,
lawyers have their own schedules. I literally do not know specific
details because I’m not privy to that information as of this moment.”
Well, it’s good to know somebody’s in charge at the Authority.
The Valdosta City Council could also hold an ethics investigation
of their own appointees to the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority,
on the topic of why those appointees are in favor of a project with
demonstrated health hazards to the community.
According to Ashley Paulk, a few months ago VLCIA approached the Lowndes County government, asking them to ask VLCIA not to extend Sterling Planet’s contract for the biomass plant. Chairman Paulk refused to accept that hot potato and instead laudably told the community what was going on. Yet there was a bit of a good idea in what VLCIA was asking. Lowndes County could pass an ordinance such as VDT is suggesting banning the incineration of human feces.
For that matter, wasn’t the rezoning to build a certain biomass plant according to a certain plan which has no expired? Maybe the rezoning is already null and void and the Commission just needs to declare it so.
Short of that, the Lowndes County Commission could demand transparency from VLCIA:
Standard Green Energy Option: $3.50 (plus tax) a month per 100 kWh block.
This option delivers Green-e Energy certified renewable energy that is
generated entirely by biomass.
Premium Green Energy with Solar Option: $5.00 (plus tax) a month per 100 kWh block.
This option delivers Green-e Energy certified renewable energy that
contains a mix of at least 50% solar and 50% biomass energy.
You get a separate line item on your bill for whichever one you buy.
Some people claim that there’s no way to do this because it’s just
electrons once it gets on the wire.
Sure, and money is just dollars once you spend it.
But contracts can determine where those dollars go, and in exchange for what:
Due to the way electricity is transmitted and distributed, energy
purchased or produced from renewable energy resources may not be
specifically delivered to you. However, the renewable energy you purchase
will be added to the power grid and will displace incremental power that
would have otherwise been produced from traditional generating resources.
So as Jaime Hockin advised, if you want to show you want renewable
energy, and you are a Georgia Power customer, sign up and
Georgia Power will hear you!