Tag Archives: Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority

Did they know it would be considered for a private prison at that time? —Barbara Stratton

Received today on News about CCA’s private prison Project Excel expected at Thursday’s VLCIA board meeting. -jsq
Do you know why the county sold this property for less than the assessed price to the current owner in 2007 minus the wetlands that interject? Did they know it would be considered for a private prison at that time? Now the current owner will make the million dollar profit instead of the county. Since this is considered industrial park acerage owned by the county why would the county sell it if an industry/business was not promised at that time? What is the 100 acres the development agreement says the owner will be given? Is that the 119 acres of wetlands? If the county decides not to allow the private prison what happens to the earnest money that has been deposited to date since that would not be an action by the buyer or the seller?

-Barbara Stratton

According to the online information from the Lowndes County Tax Assessors Office, parcel number 0156D 005 on W/S Perimeter Road was sold by “VALDOSTA-LOWNDES COUNTY” to “BASSFORD N L JR” on 14 November 2007 for $1,463,512 as fair market value :

Sale Information
Sale DateDeed BookPlat PagePriceReasonGrantorGrantee
11-14-2007 3967 072 PC A 3852 $ 1,463,512 Fair Market – Vacant VALDOSTA-LOWNDES COUNTY BASSFORD N L JR
02-13-1998 1514 0327 $ 0 Non-Market VALDOSTA-LOWNDES COUNTY

The seller was not the Lowndes County Commission, which would start with “LOWNDES COUNTY”, and it’s not the City of Valdosta, which wouldn’t be hyphenated with the county name like that. Could it be the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority?

-jsq

LTE: Tell the Industrial Authority No private prison —John S. Quarterman

My LTE in the VDT today. -jsq
Industrial Authority Executive Director Andrea Schruijer told me to expect their board to say something at their 2PM Thursday board meeting about the private prison Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) wants to build on US 84 at Perimeter Road. If they don’t give CCA another extension, the contract expires March 13th.

There’s still time to contact them, (229) 259-9972. Or go to their board meeting at 101 North Ashley Street, 2PM Thursday February 23rd.

A private prison would not increase employment in Lowndes County. It would not even save the state money. And it would have high risk of closing after or even before it opened, because of escapes and inmate disturbances, and most importantly because the state and federal governments can no longer afford to incarcerate so many people. That would leave us and the state holding the bag for any investment in building it.

Outsourcing public justice for private profit at taxpayer expense is not only bad business, we the taxpayers can’t afford to pay for it while public education is under increasing budgetary pressure.

As members of the local community, we do not wish to live in a private prison colony, with the attendant risks of inmate violence and escape, and the accompanying public opprobrium that would drive away the knowledge-based workers we claim to be trying to attract.

Finally, public justice should not be a matter of private profit.

John S. Quarterman
lives in Lowndes County

You may recognize the wording from the petition. You can always write your own letter with your own reasons.

-jsq

An Industrial Authority agenda with content! Including VSEB and land acreage!

Yesterday Andrea Schruijer promised to get an agenda for tomorrow’s 2PM Thursday 23 February 2012 Industrial Authority board meeting (101 N. Ashley Street) online. It’s there, and it has content! What it does not have is any mention of anything about Project Excel, or CCA, or the private prison, even though Ms. Schruijer told me yesterday to expect the board to say something about that. You can still express your opinion to them before then. And since this agenda says **TENTATIVE** maybe that item will get added before tomorrow afternoon.

Also missing is any item for the Strategic Planning RFP, even though that RFP says the board will review any responses received by their February board meeting.

What this agenda does have is numerous specific items under the usual broad headers such as Existing Industry/Project Report. So instead of listening to Col. Ricketts and trying to figure out what he’s talking about, you can see such things as “e-Snychronist® Existing Industry Retention and Expansion business information system (BIS)” in writing. You still don’t see names of the “five (5) Prospects” or the “three (3) companies that are developing expansion plans”. Maybe I buy the competitive information argument for the prospects, but I’m not so sure about the three expanding companies, especially if they’re already local. And considering the things VLCIA has tried to sneak in under cover of not mentioning competitive information, such as biomass and a private prison, I’m not sure I buy that argument at all.

Also on the plus side, the agenda includes an actual schedule for bids Continue reading →

Roy Copeland
Roy Copeland
Chairman 		Tom Call
Tom Call 		Mary B. Gooding
Mary Gooding 		Norman Bennett
Norman Bennett 		Jerry Jennett
Jerry Jennett,

It’s not too late to express your opinion to this tax-funded (1 mil of your property taxes + SPLOST funds, for around $3 million a year) appointed board. Follow this link for contact information for the VLCIA board. Or sign the petition online and your signature gets emailed directly to VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer.

-jsq

News about CCA’s private prison Project Excel expected at Thursday’s VLCIA board meeting

Thursday’s Industrial Authority retreat and board meeting are both open meetings, which the public can attend. And at the 2PM board meeting apparently there will be news about Project Excel, CCA’s private prison.

VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer clarified on the telephone just now that Thursday’s 9AM-2PM board retreat is an open meeting; the public can attend. She said the agenda was made by the facilitator, and she had not seen it. The purpose of the retreat is for board members to talk about their experiences and roles as board members. The retreat is not for discussing specific projects.

Regarding the 2PM board meeting Thursday, she said she thought the agenda was on VLCIA’s web pages. When we looked and found it wasn’t there, she said apparently there was some confusion due to the rescheduling of the meeting, and the agenda would be there soon.

I asked her whether the Project Excel Project Excel, the CCA private prison, she said the Preliminary Specifications ( see section 1.6.1) had been received. She said they had been received, and they were simply a site diagram, a copy of which was hanging on VLCIA’s office wall. From discussion with her, it appears to be this site plan: Continue reading →

Two VLCIA meetings Thursday: retreat and board 2012 02 23

This month’s cancelled Industrial Authority board meeting has been rescheduled. Not the usual date, not the usual time, not the usual place:
Notice: The Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority Regular Meeting has been rescheduled for the month of February. The meeting date will be Thursday, February 23, 2011, 2:00 P.M. at 101 N Ashley Street.

Notice of the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority Board Retreat, Thursday, February 23, 2012, 9:00 AM- 2:00 PM at 101 N Ashley Street.
Since I’m familiar with that location as the old closed pawn shop, I called VLCIA’s new PR person, Meghan Duke, for clarification. I congratulated her on her recent appointment, and repeated what I’ve been saying for some time now, that VLCIA does many good things most people don’t know about and with some PR maybe we would. She said she was working on educating the public.

About the meeting location, she told me Continue reading →

Has CCA already breached the private prison agreement with VLCIA?

And also in her recent response about the Notice to Proceed (NTP), VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer didn’t answer the other question, which was whether VLCIA had received the Preliminary Specifications ( see section 1.6.1) that appear to have been due at least half a year ago, according to the Development Schedule in Schedule 1.6.2 of the Agreement. Without those Preliminary Specifications, maybe CCA has already breached the contract.

She copied VLCIA’s attorney. Probably he could interpret the termination clauses of the contract that way….

-jsq

Third extension option offered by VLCIA to CCA for private prison?

Update: Andrea Schruijer’s answer of 21 February 2012.

Also in her recent response about the Notice to Proceed (NTP), VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer she didn’t mention this paragraph:

5.1.2. Expiration. If the Company has not issued the NTP by the expiration of the Term of the Option Agreement, then this Agreement shall expire and terminate, without any further liability on the part of any Party to the other, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement.
The current, second, extension term expires 13 March 2012, one month from Monday. If there’s no NTP and no third extension before then, there’s no private prison (see 5.1.2).

So has VLCIA sent CCA terms for a third extension option? If not, this thing may be over in a month and a few days. If yes, what are those terms?

-jsq

Development Schedule for CCA and VLCIA private prison

In her recent response about the Notice to Proceed (NTP), VLCIA Executive Director Andrea Schruijer cited and paraphrased paragraph 1.6.2 of the Purchase and Development Agreement. The same paragraph points out the Development Schedule is already in the Agreement, as Schedule 1.6.2.
The Development Schedule contains, among other things, milestones for the work and assignments of responsibility to the Parties for the attainment of certain milestones.
Here it is:

So it’s not clear why she said CCA hadn’t provided a Development Schedule.

-jsq

VLCIA has not received a Notice to Proceed from CCA for the private prison

Received Wednesday. -jsq
From: Andrea Schruijer
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:38 PM
To: ‘Matt Flumerfelt’
Cc: ‘Steve Gupton’
Subject: RE: Notice to Proceed and Preliminary Specifications

Dear Mr. Flumerfelt,

In regards to your email of February 6, 2012, CCA has not given to the Authority a “Development Schedule” and has not received from CCA a “Notice to Proceed.” Under paragraph 1.6.2, except for some due diligence provided for in the agreement, the Parties have no obligation to proceed with design, permitting, installation or construction of the Project, prior to receiving a NTP from CCA. CCA has absolute discretion in issuing or withholding the NTP. After the issuance of the NTP the parties shall proceed with the development of the project in accordance with the Development Schedule.

Sincerely,
Andrea Schruijer

Continue reading →