The renovations of City Hall, which most recently were scheduled to be finished by May 23, have been delayed another three months.  

    Mayor Cheri Barry announced at a city council meeting Tuesday that the new expected completion date for the renovations is September 1.

    “There’s no more money being put into the project … Even with the extra 90 days, no extra money will be put into City Hall (above what has already been allotted).”

    Barry said city offices should be able to move back into the building by September 1, with building renovations and furnishings complete, but that landscaping will not be complete by that time.

    She said corners are being cut in other aspects of the project, such as furniture, in order to finance the landscaping, which she said will begin sometime between fall 2011 and early spring 2012.

    “Mainly it’s the finishing details like the doors and staining the floors (that are not complete),” Barry said. “It’s really the small tedious stuff that’s not done… The massive stuff is done — like the huge columns, they’re beautiful.”

    Barry added that she does not think the delays are due to a lack of effort on the part of project workers. “They’re moving like little ants over there. They’re putting in the doors, and it’s going to be beautiful.”

    Ward 1 City Councilman Dr. George Thomas pointed out that the project contractor did not come before their council seeking an extension on their contract.

    “(The contractor) just told us he won’t have it done,” he said.

    The project, which began in 2006, has suffered a series of delays and cost increases, with costs more than doubling from the original estimate of under $10 million to around $20 million.

    The longest delays in the project came during the exterior renovation phase. During that  phase, workers uncovered a large number of unknown structural problems and completed the tedious task of re-tiling the exterior of the nearly 100-year-old, three-story building with tiles that had subtle differences in size, meaning each tile had to be placed in a specific place.

    City Hall was originally constructed in 1915 and is considered a historic landmark by the state. The building is undergoing a complete historically accurate renovation, and the city is bound to follow specifications by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History.

    The building’s original 1915 elements will be incorporated with modern conveniences such as climate control and will be made to comply with modern building codes. According to MDAH, the building will be special among historic government buildings because it will continue to be used for its original purpose.

Past and future

    The city council has now voted to uphold a citywide ban on fortune telling three times, but despite making that vote twice at their Tuesday meeting, the council is already making plans to revisit the issue again.  

    Although their attorney advised them that the ban is unlikely to hold up in court, the council voted 4-1 in April not to lift the ban, with some council members citing their personal beliefs as the reason for their vote.

    At Tuesday’s meeting, the council again voted to uphold the ban, but this time only to allow more time to decide how to zone fortune telling after lifting the ban. Tuesday’s vote was 3-2, with Ward 4 Councilman Jesse E. Palmer, Sr. and Ward 1 Councilman Dr. George Thomas voting to lift the ban. Ward 2 Councilwoman Mary A.B. Perry, Ward 3 Councilwoman Barbara Henson, and Ward 5 Councilman Bobby R. Smith voted to keep the ban.

    Palmer is the only council member to change his vote from the previous meeting.

    The council first brought the issue to a vote after a local man, Sandy Mitchell, sought to open a fortune telling business inside the city limits and was not allowed to do so. Mitchell, who is involved in the Ms. Mary fortune telling business near Collinsville, went to the American Civil Liberties Union, who threatened the city with legal action.

    City Attorney Ronnie Walton said the city’s ordinance against fortune telling would likely be overruled as unconstitutional if taken to court. He said that he found a number of cases of similar ordinances in other cities that were challenged in court, and that in each case they were overturned.

    City Planner Don Jemison presented the council with a plan to zone fortune telling businesses in B4 zones, mostly along the Interstate 20/59, and allow them only with a special use permit.

    Henson said she did not feel that zoning was strict enough because some parts of the city’s current B4 zones include residential areas. Henson said she would consider voting to lift the ban, but only after the creation of stricter zoning.

    Perry and Smith did not say if they would consider lifting the ban pending stricter zoning, but only three votes are needed to rescind the ordinance that bans fortune telling.

    The council first voted down the motion to lift the ban because they wanted to hear more about the proposed zoning. After hearing from Jemison on the zoning, they took a second vote and again voted down the motion to lift the ban.

    Walton told the council that continuing to uphold the ban could land the city in a losing court battle.

    “If we are challenged, I’m real concerned that we would not be successful on a constitutional basis. If you accept the recommendation of the planning commission, then you at least create the opportunity to restrict (fortune telling),” Walton said. He said the city may not be given a choice in where to allow fortune telling if the ban is overturned in court.

    “We’ve been told by the attorney that if it is challenged in court we would probably not win,” said Thomas. “We’re restricting it to a very small area of the city, a very small commercial area… and then within that, we have professional staff telling us that if it is incompatible with the adjoining property, they would probably come back and deny (a permit to open a fortune telling business).”

    In December, the city placed a temporary moratorium on fortune telling in order to give itself more time to look into how to manage fortune telling within the city limits should the ban be removed. The moratorium was declared in addition to the ordinance prohibiting fortune telling that was already on the books.

    It was suggested that the council vote to lift the ban, but not lift the moratorium, thus allowing time to tweak the zoning of fortune telling without continuing to uphold the legally uncertain ordinance, but the council chose not to go that route.

    “What I’d like to see this council do is get together and decide what they would approve,” said Henson. “I don’t like it being around a residential area.”

    Henson asked Jemison if he could create a smaller zoning area to further restrict fortune telling businesses, to which Jemison only replied that it’s never been done before.

    The council did not say when they would meet to discuss zoning for fortune telling businesses or when they would vote on the ban again.

What you said

    Here’s a look at what some of the Meridian Star’s fans on Facebook had to say about the fortune telling ban. To get in on the conversation, “like” the Meridian Star at www.facebookk.com/meridianstar.

    • Jason McClure: “Not that I am into fortune telling, but if someone wants to spend their money on it and the city can get tax revenue from it, I don’t see where the problem lies.”

    • LeQuincy Kimbrough: “I think that there are more important issues at hand than spending time worried about fortune telling.”

    • Susan Hurst Burkhalter: “I predict a lawsuit and I didn’t even have to fire up the crystal ball.”

    • Tommy Irby: “Maybe the city council needs to consult a fortune teller in regards to completing the renovations to City Hall.”