Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-2002 Meeting I PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - March 25,2002 12:30 P. M. PRESENT: W. Mays, Chairman, U. Bridges, r. Colclough, B. Kuhlke members, Commissioners, L. Beard, B. Hankerson; M. Williams, G. Kolb, Administrator, W. Hornsby, Deputy Administrator, J. Wall, Attorney, R. Sherman and A. Totka, L&I, T. Beck, Recreation Director, G. Smith, Sheriff's Dept., L. Bonner Clerk of Commission. ABSENT: B. Young, Mayor. . MEDIA: Augusta Focus, H. Williams, Augusta Chronicle, G. Esko1a, Channel 6. 1. Motion to approve an Option for right-of-way between Elizabeth Bennett Cobbs fIkIa Elizabeth Bennett, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $40,000.00: Tract "J" consisting of 0.22 acre, more or less. Mr. Wall: We have an option to purchase property for the Recreation Department project. The property owner has gotten an appraisal about $7,500.00 more than our appraisal. With all factors considered we recommend approval of the counter offer at $40,000. I Mr. Beck: For your information this is for the Sand Hills Park project. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Bridges: Second. Motion carries unanimously. 2. New Ownership: A.N. 02-15: A request by Peter V. Johnson for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with The Hide- Away Lounge located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. Mr. Sherman: The applicant is not present. On February 20 a James Bailon applied for a license at this location and it was denied. If the applicant was present we're not prepared to recommend approval until he is in compliance with regulations that we review at the L&I Dept. The Sheriffs Dept. also needs to speak with him on some additional information. Because of that there would be no recommendation from us it would just go forward. The Sheriffs Dept could have a recommendation at the Commission meeting. I Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we refer this to the next Committee meeting on April 8. Mr. Bridges: Second. Motion carries unanimously. I 3. New Ownership: A.N. 02-16: A request by Michael Sanders for a retail package Beer license to be used in connection with M & M Minit Mart located at 5131 Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10. Mr. Sanders: Michael A Sanders, 1029 Mosely Road, Augusta. Mr. Sherman: The L&I Dept. and the Sheriff's Dept. recommend approval. (No obj ectors) Mr. Colclough: So move for approval. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carries unanimously. 4. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's Dept. for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the business license used in connection with Osaka Spa located at 2352 Washington Rd. for the following: soliciting & keeping a place of prostitution. District 7. Super District 10. I Mr. Smith, Sheriffs Dept: This all came about because of an undercover operation on March 9 at 1 :00 A.M. Previously, we had received information that there was prostitution taking place at the Osaka Spa. On that particular night we sent an undercover officer in to get a massage. He was charged $40.00 to walk in the door. The money is taken right away before you're actually approached by anybody for a massage. He was then placed in a waiting room where there was several people sitting around waiting. In this particular case we gave the undercover $100.00. He was eventually taken into a room where he was told to undress. He undressed and lay on the table. The young lady that we charged with masturbation for hire, Ms. Kim, then came into the room. She undressed with the exception of panties, so she was nude, everything except panties. She then proceeded to give him a back massage. At one point during the conversation, we're monitoring it from outside. We obviously had some communications. We were monitoring and tape recording the conversation. She then tells him that, and this is a quote, "if you show me yours, I'll show you mine". She has him turn over and does the massage on the front then uses a hand motion, indicating she will masturbate for the additional $60.00. She leaves the room to go find out how much money he has. Obviously, the woman at the door knows that he has at least $60.00 more in his po'cket. She comes back in, she offers the masturbation for the additional $60.00 and at that point we enter the spa and made the arrest. We charged Ms. Kim with masturbation for hire and we also charged Ms. Cooper, I 2 I who is the woman that runs the house and greets the customers as they come in and takes the money initially. She was charged with keeping a house of prostitution. All that was charged under Magistrate Court. Mr. Sherman: Our recommendation is that the license be revoked. Mr. Kuhlke: So move for approval. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. J. Pete Theddocion, Attorney, representing license holder of Osaka Spa: The record will show that we had no opportunity to present any evidence or cross examine any witness or make any comments, here to fore prior to having the motion accepted by apparently everyone at the table. As long as that's noted on the record then we'll see you at the full Commission on Tuesday. Mr. Wall: A motion was made. There has been no vote. So you are now afforded the opportunity to speak. I Mr. J. Pete Theddocion, Attorney: I would like to inquire about a few things. First of all, what we have is a case of initial impression at Osaka Spa. Osaka Spa is the license holder he pays his license fees. We plan on presenting to the Commission Tuesday when we have an opportunity to present our case, evidence of business records. He pays employees taxes. This is a not cash in, cash out business as would be indicative of most illegitimate enterprises. This is a case of first impression. This is not the third, fourth or even the second time a case like this has come up before this Committee, the full Commission or anyone else. And of course, we don't have in that light right there, basically what the Sheriffs Dept. is asking you to do with this business is have a zero tolerance rule. When we have a liquor store that sells to an under age minor we don't put the liquor store out of business for the first time. At least I've never seen it. And certainly, there's a bigger health concern bigger public safety concern for under age drinking than the activity that has been alleged here. Also, I want to point out that there is no factual connection at all between the activities of the employee and either management, ownership or the license holder, Mr. Samuel Reed, my client. There is no evidence connecting him with this. All we have is an assumption that the employee went to see how much money the other gentleman had. Now how she would know that the other gentleman had change made for him I don't know. She had no idea that he handed $100.00 and got $60.00 back or if he just gave two twenties. So, the idea that she must have gone to see how much money he has, I don't think that should really carry that much weight. That's not really a logical progression of thought. That well if she leaves the room the lady up front would know how much every single gentleman has in his pocket. So we don't have any evidence at all that this is anything more than an isolated incident that the employee engaged in. I do have a copy of an affidavit; I'll go ahead and give you the original. This is an affidavit signed by Mr. Lee which verifies that the I 3 employee who did engage in this alleged misconduct, Ms. Kim, was terminated immediately after the incident as soon as the arrest procedure was done. She was terminated, is not welcome back and will not be back at this spa. Lastly, I did want to point out one more thing. That is the mechanism that we have for taking these licenses and of course the Augusta Richmond County Commission has a great deal of power to set up a structure for dealing with it's citizens. It can pretty much set up any sort of mechanism it wants and that is the due process to which we are to be afforded. Well, the structure that has been set up in this case did so and we have not been afforded that due process. This license was taken. If you have a copy of the ordinance in front of you, if not I can read the various provisions that I would like to point out. When the Sheriff's Dept. comes in and suspends the license. In a nutshell, they are to report back to the next regular called meeting of the Commission and we are to have three days notice of that. This license was taken two weeks ago. It is before the Commission next week, which of course there was a regularly scheduled meeting on March 19. We would've had opportunity to be given a full weeks notice. The arrest happened on March 9. The license was taken on the following Tuesday, March 12. Rather than go by the ordinance and place this on the next meeting of the Commission, give us notice of such and proceed with the due process to which we are entitled. We are entitled to whatever due process you create for us. That did not happen. We were not given the benefit of the legislative scheme to which we are entitled. I have spoken with legal counsel for the Commission and perhaps there is an issue well this is the next regular called meeting of the Committee and that suffices. However, in the ordinance, the ordinance which addresses all this, we're entitled to the next regularly called meeting of the Commission and at that meeting the Commission can either choose to revoke, restate the license, all these things that the Committee does not have the power to do. Only the full Commission does. So, in that ordinance when it refers to the Commission it does not refer to Committee, it refers to a full Commission that has the power to make final decisions. That is a problem. Basically, our position is, I) this is a first time incident, 2) the employee has been terminated. It is a legitimate business. There is no evidence, I think this is the most important thing perhaps, there is no evidence connecting any of this behavior to the license holder. And lastly, throw all of that aside, we haven't been given our legal due process and that is going to create a problem. It's creating a problem now and it could create a problem in the future. So what we're going to suggest and what we request is that the Committee recommend that the license of Osaka Spa be given a probationary status. When it comes time to reissue a new one this could come up, how have they done in the interim period, has there been any other activity. What has gone on with this business? That would alleviate a lot of the problems we have and it wouldn't set a bad precedence if you have a business and you have an employee break the law, we're going to yank you, we're going to shut you down. I know that's not how we treat all businesses. Let's see how we're going to treat this one. Everyone is entitled to have an employee to make a mistake. Then as a license holder, it's your responsibility to lllake sure it doesn't happen again and that's what Mr. Reed plans on doing. So that's basically all we have. We just ask you to allow him to I I I 4 I stay in business even under a probationary status. I think that would be the fairest thing and it would be the most just thing in this particular case. Mr. Wall: Let me address two things that counsel stated. .First of all, this is not a case of first impression. We've had other situations involving massage parlors where there has been prostitution for hire in which we have revoked the license. We do have a zero tolerance and we have implemented that in the past and this is not the first occasion. I can't tell you the name of the spa but there is one that comes to mind. Second, in so far as the due process is concerned, Mr. Theddocion and I spoke last week in advance of last Tuesday's Commission meeting the notice had not gone out and obviously the three day notice is typically what opposing parties rely upon that they did not have adequate notice. He was arguing that we should've had an earlier hearing. I offered at that time to request that the Commission hear it last Tuesday, he declined that offer and did not want to have it. His objection basically was that it should not come to before the Committee that it should go directly to the Commission on Tuesday of next week. I disagree with that interpretation. I think we afforded him due process and I join with the License Dept. and the Sheriffs Dept. recommending revocation of the license. I Mr. Theddocion: If I could say two things briefly. It' s your first impression for this particular business. I'm not interested in what's going on any place else. But this is the first time this activity has come up with this business. Secondly, again on Monday when we were told, well maybe we can put it on the next days Commission meeting that still would not give us what's in the ordinance. We're allowed three days notice next Commission. We're allowed that due process which under no possible scenario was going to be met here. Motion carries unanimously. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's Dept. for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the alcohol license used in connection with Super C Lounge located at 2746 Tobacco Rd. for the following: failure to use restraint in the operation of his club. District 6. Super District 10. Mr. Cummings: Charles Cummings 2746 Tobacco Road. I Mr. Smith: This comes as a result of numerous problems that we've had. What I've done is gone back to when I took over the Vice Division, December 20 and pulled all the problems that we've had with Super C's since then. Our biggest concern with Super C's is that he holds a restaurant license which allows him to allow 18-year olds and above in the night club and the vast majority of the problems that we're having are 18 and ahove. I have a list of incidents that we've had that have involved under age persons at the club. As you can see from December 20 until we had a total of eleven incidents, six involving under age 5 patrons. I met with Mr. Cummings to reiterate that we had a problem. One of the deputies working a special forwarded me a report that Mr. Cummings was selling alcohol after hours. Because he has a restaurant license he can certainly stay open all night if he chooses to do that but the alcohol sales have to stop as if it were a regular nightclub. So at 3:00 on Monday through Friday night and 2:30 on Saturday night not only must the alcohol sales stop but there can be no alcohol visible in the nightclub. So if you're a bar owner you're required to lock up all the alcohol in cabinetS' and the patrons cannot have any alcohol on the tables. The report I received from the Deputy said that he was selling beer after those particular hours. I went out and spoke with Mr. Cummings to let him know that we wanted to work with him and do whatever we could to help him out and to get everything in order. A few more days pasted and we had a pretty serious aggravated assault there on New Year's eve, which prompted the Sheriff to instruct me to have Mr. Cummings come in for a meeting and myself and Sheriff Strength met \vith him on January 8. Since that time we're had twenty-eight additional incidents, again nine of those involved underage drinkers. The DUI Task Force stopped a car that had four people in it. Two of which including the driver, was underage and drinking all were drinking but two of them were under age. They all said they had just left Super C's. One said he was a regular out there and never got carded because they knew him. We've had a total of forty- two incidents at that nightclub since December 20. We've had a twenty-one total arrest there. Of the forty-two incidents seventeen involved under age and of the twenty-one arrest, eleven involved people under the age of twenty-one. Also, as a result of the problems that we were having and Mr. Sherman can give you more information on this, we requested an audit, because we were of the opinion that this was in fact not a restaurant but a nightclub that had a restaurant license. We felt that the license was being abused. But the restaurant license was there for the benefit of legitimate restaurants. We don't feel like this is being used properly in this case. The Sheriff s Dept. is requesting that the restaurant license be revoked and the alcohol license be put on probation. I I Mr. Cummings: I have a letter that states failure to comply with restraint. I would like to respond to some of the allegations that were made. First of all, the after hours sales. That situation occurred when the officer said to me that I was selling after hours, which is not true. I stop selling at twenty-five after. It doesn't make sense for me to do that because I have officers in the building. As far as the college night, I let area college students come in and do fund raisers. They raise money for the fraternities and things of that nature. Over the course of time, I've changed the age limit from 18 to 21. All the deputies know that. I have told them to tell the investigators that because we don't want them coming in. The one incident where he stated the kids were drinking and driving, we do not sell to underage kids. A lot of time they can get alcohol from the package shops or whereever the case may be. They did not come out of my place intoxicated. I do not allow that to happen. I've been in business for eleven years. I've never been sited for selling to underage. I've never done anything to violate any rules. The one situation with clearing the lot, that was a night when I should've had three I 6 I deputies on duty. Not one showed up. And I didn't get any calls that no one would show up. I made a call to dispatch that I was going to close early because I had people trying to get in. I let one group in and another group out. Those folks on the outside wanted to come back in so by them wanting to come in under those conditions, I called dispatch and told them that I was closing up to send me somebody to help clear the parking lot, that was my call. When the deputy got there he said there was a report about some shots fired. Maybe somebody that was angry about not getting in made that call and made that false statement making thing difficult to continue to operate. As far as food is concerned, I sell lots offood. Mr. Colclough: What percentage of you business is in food sales? Mr. Cummings: Fifty-three percent. Mr. Sherman: Mr. Thompkins, our attorney did conduct an audit for 2001. Based on the receipts, fifty-three percent of the sales were for food. But, when he looked at purchases, there was $21,723.18 in alcohol purchases that could not be accounted for. We 'assumed that it was sold. He said it was mishandled or stolen. Mr. Bridges: Rob, what significance does that have? I Mr. Sherman: It's missing alcohol. It's not in the establishment. It was $21,000 in alcohol purchases that cannot be accounted for. Mr. Bridges: In other words what could happen, he could be selling alcohol and ringing it up as food. Mr. Sherman: That could happen or it could not be rung up at all. We don't know. We did put in the report that based on the receipts available there is fifty- three percent in food sales. But, we also found $21,000 worth of alcohol that was unaccountable for and that seventy- percent of the total purchases was for alcohol. Mr. Mays: I think we need to more clarity as to whether or not we're in violation of what our own ordinance says or how we're dealing with that. Because, I'm getting a little confused on where you're taking me on that side of it. I think we need to come back after we get cleared up on that in terms of the other violations on the Sheriff's Dept. side and see where we're going with that. I need a little clarity in terms of total purchases versus total percentage purchases. I think we should say what the ordinance says, what the ordinance requires not what the assumption maybe of what the percentages are. I Mr. Sherman: Based on the receipts that he has per sales. He has fifty-three percent of food sales. But he has $21,000 worth of alcohol that is not accounted for. 7 Mr. Mays: One question that relates to this particular one. Is there a general rule that we follow, do you have this to occur in terms of unaccounted for alcohol and how do you all deal with that? Or do you have a record on this establishment, because I think this is one that has a long history of Sunday sales. Have you had previously, dating back on your audits anything that resembles this situation of where there is an unaccounted for alcohol situation? Mr. Totka: Basically, the percentage from the past audits, the total sales have been fifty-three to fifty-five percent. However, there has been nothing said about the purchases. Going back for thirteen months, the alcohol sales were $33,925.60 and his alcohol purchases were $54,998.78. According for receipts shown for food purchases in total the alcohol purchases were seventy-percent of total purchases. When I asked Mr. Cummings his explanation for the excessive purchases of alcohol he said it was due to employees mishandling alcohol inventory. I After further discussion, Mr. Mays: What does the law specifically say is to be done with a beverage that is sitting out there after the sale is over with but was purchased prior to the sale? Mr. Totka: The ordinance requires that Monday-Friday night the alcohol sales have to stop by 10:30. If you have a restaurant license there can be no alcohol visible anywhere in that restaurantlbar as of 3:00. A nightclub has to be closed doors locked no employees inside. A restaurant can remain open but all the alcohol behind the bar has to be secured in locked cabinets so that it cannot be visible. All the beer coolers have to be locked and no patrons anywhere in that building can have any alcohol visible on the tables. It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure that is done. I Mr. Bridges: I know Mr. Cummings disputed some of the items on this list. I'll make the motion that we accept the Sheriff's Dept. recommendation and put the aIcohollicense on probation and revoke the restaurant license. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. After further discussion, Mr. Kuhlke: Why don't we forward this to the full Commission with no recommendation and talk about it then. Motion fails with Bridges and Kuhlke voting yes and Colclough and Mays voting no. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission I ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned. 8 I PUBLIC SERVICES AGENDA COMMITTEE ROOM - March 25, 2002 12:30 P. M. I. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Elizabeth Bennett Cobbs fikla Elizabeth Bennett, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $40,000.00: Tract "f' consisting of 0.22 acre, more or less. 2. New Ownership: A.N. 02-15: A request by Peter V. Johnson for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with The Hide-Away Lounge located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. 3. New Ownership: A.N.02-16: A request by Michael Sanders for a retail package Beer license to be used in connection with M & !vI Minit Mart located at 5131 Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10. 4. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's Dept. for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the business license used in connection with Osaka Spa located at 2352 Washington Rd. for the following: soliciting & keeping a place of prostitution. District 7. Super District 10. I 5. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriffs Dept for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the alcohol license used in connection with Super C Lounge located at 2746 Tobacco Rd. for the following: failure to use restraint in the operation of his club. District 6. Super District 10. .... - - ....