The owner of Lucy’s Branch Marina said Tuesday he still doesn’t understand why two state senators allowed a bill to fail that would have annexed the marina into the city of Athens.

Billy Christopher said State Sens. Bill Holtzclaw, R-Madison, and Tim Melson, R-Florence defied 11 other elected officials who were in favor of the proposal. The five members of the City Council unanimously approved Christopher’s annexation request, as did the six other members of the Limestone County Legislative Delegation that Holtzclaw and Melson also belong to.

“We were extremely disappointed two senators saw fit to think their opinions outweighed the collective opinions,” Christopher said. “When people in this location cannot even vote for or against Sen. Holtzclaw and yet he can solely stop the whole process, I think it’s inherently unfair for him to do that.”

In a post to his Facebook page Tuesday, Holtzclaw included a link to a lengthy blog post and “supporting documentation” as a means of sharing “facts that are not being reported.”

In post, Holtzclaw said it was his hope that “others involved in this legislative annexation request would be forthright in their discussions regarding the outcome of this issue, but unfortunately that has not happened.”

He also said he did not care for the “difficult position that I’ve been placed in with regards to this legislative annexation but always strive to be open and transparent regarding my representation of the people in the Alabama Legislature.”

Christopher said he had read Holtzclaw’s comments regarding the bill, but preferred to provide The News Courier with a point-by-point rebuttal from Jay Reynolds. Reynolds, of Huntsville, lives in Holtzclaw’s district but also has a house in Bay Village and a boat he houses at Lucy’s Branch Marina.

“He’s my senator and we were affected by his actions,” Reynolds said, adding he had also voted for Holtzclaw.

Timeline and rebuttal

The sections in bold are from Holtzclaw’s blog post, which can also be read in its entirety by clicking here. Italicized sections are Reynolds’ rebuttal points:

May 4

Holtzclaw: “A local bill regarding annexation of property approximately seven miles outside of the established city limits of Athens passes the Alabama House of Representatives. To say that this bill passed the 105 Members of the House is rather disingenuous; actual vote count? Passed 23-0 with 65 members of the House abstaining. The legislature is not normally involved in the annexation process as property annexation request contiguous to existing city limits only requires a vote of the city council. To my knowledge there is only one other instance of an “island” annexation in Athens/Limestone County — Blacks Landing — and this occurred several years ago. This is the first annexation by legislation request that I’ve seen in my seven years of service in office.”

Reynolds: “Understanding that not everyone in the legislature voted for the bill does not change the fact that it was unanimous. After paying close attention recently to some of the bills passing through both bodies of legislature, I gather that it’s not possible for every politician to be intimately familiar with every bill. Under those circumstances, I’d prefer that someone be honest and abstain from the vote, but the lack of opposition remains a key point.

I was unfamiliar with Blacks Landing, so I did a little research on them. This appears to be an identical situation to what the marina was requesting. I won’t include a map, since I’m sure you’ve done your research as well, but you’ve essentially got a small patch of land connected to the city limits by Nuclear Plant Road, with nothing else contiguous. I agree that this situation is certainly unusual, hence why you haven’t seen it in your seven years, however the existence of Blacks Landing is a set precedent that such action is legal and has stood the test of time.”

May 8

Holtzclaw: “A formal agreement between city and property owner/developer is signed. In the agreement the property owner acknowledges that even though the property would be considered a part of Athens, the city would not be required to provide fire, police, trash services and that the city could de-annex the property at any time.”

May 9

Holtzclaw: “I received an email from the city with the agreement from May 8 attached. It is important to note, while I had heard rumblings of a proposed legislative island annexation this is the first time that I had been contacted by the city regarding the proposed annexation. I briefly met with HB579 bill sponsor, Rep. Danny Crawford and fellow Limestone County Senate Delegation, Sen. (Arthur) Orr and Sen. Melson on the Senate floor that afternoon to discuss having had no previous interaction with city/county regarding this legislative annexation and initial concerns regarding the lack of fire/police protection for a city annexation and possible impact of the city granting an alcohol license. I will not speak for my colleagues, but (I) understood they shared similar concerns.”

Reynolds: “You mention alcohol in this entry, but I’ll get to that later in the interest of keeping everything easier to follow. Regarding your concerns with the fire protection, the agreement between the city and the marina specifically stated that the city would have to “engage in reasonable efforts” to contract with Clements VFD, but it does not state that this contract must be in place before the passage of the bill. Further, the agreement specifically releases the city from liability regarding the use of the Clements VFD. Given that the marina has been in operation for many years, my assumption is that right now they’re reliant on one of the VFDs in the area, so I’m not sure how this would change anything if the city isn’t liable. With all of that said, it would seem that sole concern about adequate fire protection for the marina should fall on the owner.”

May 12

Holtzclaw: “(I) began receiving emails — about 30 in all — from residents living around/near the marina asking that I support the annexation. I replied to each email and included a copy of the agreement that had been signed by the property owner and the city along with an explanation of my concerns. I received replies back over the next couple of days — some supporting the annexation, others opposing primarily based on potential for increased property taxes with no city services. Important to note — my email was shared with others as I began receiving responses from people that I had not initially emailed and these responses were not in favor of the proposed annexation. This was my first public interaction/feedback regarding this proposed legislative annexation.”

Reynolds: “In addition to some residents, I know you received some emails from your constituents in Huntsville, including myself, as I have a number of friends in Huntsville and Madison who spend weekends on the river and were interested in this. Regarding the negative responses, you said “others opposing primarily based on potential for increased property taxes with no city services.” If you didn’t correct those people, it would seem disingenuous, since the annexation and corresponding tax increases would have affected the marina only. In the past month of discussion with some of my neighbors, I did come across several who were initially under the mistaken impression that the annexation was going to cover the entire neighborhood. I agree that the circumstances and the support would be quite different were that to be the case, but it isn’t.”

May 13

Holtzclaw: “After several phone calls and text messages between the property owner/developer and myself, I responded to him via email. This is a tricky email to read as the owner/developer had sent me several text messages that I copied into an email and responded to each text. I courtesy copied fellow legislators and city/county officials, detailing my concerns — including the possibility of an alcohol license being issued. Several city/county elected officials called to discuss my email. Additionally, my research of earlier press reports on the possible annexation revealed several instances where the owner/developer stated an alcohol license was not the main reason for the annexation and that they wanted to be annexed into the city regardless of an alcohol license being issued. I felt these statements supported my request for the agreement to be amended.”

Reynolds: “This is where the argument gets a little personal in my view. I’d like to start off with all cards on the table and say that I would very much support alcohol sales at the marina and at an attached restaurant. I am of the opinion that Alabama lags behind many other states in their alcohol laws and that we’re depriving ourselves of valuable tax revenue without actually doing anything to stop alcohol sales other than making people drive a little further and spend money in other counties. The craft beer laws are a perfect example, since after their passage we’ve seen a flurry of breweries opening up throughout the state. This has both created jobs and promoted the state of Alabama on a regional and national level.

My reasoning for starting out with this explanation is that I do not understand why alcohol kept getting brought up here as an issue and why you were particularly opposed to it. It could potentially be a large tax boon for Athens and a business boon for the marina. Even so, the emails you attached have John saying, ‘my partner and I are willing to unilaterally agree in writing that we will not ask for a liquor license,’ and the WAAY article you linked to had Billy (Christopher) saying, ‘We want to be part of Athens with or without alcohol.’ So with both of the owners on the record and in writing, I fail to see where the holdup was for moving forward.”

May 15

Holtzclaw: “In further phone call/text message discussion with owner/developer, he agrees that they’ll amend the agreement so that an alcohol license would not be issued by the city. I agree to meet with fellow Senators and “sign the bill out,” effectively moving it into position for final passage contingent upon the agreement being amended prior to the last day of the legislative session.”

May 17

Holtzclaw: “(I) received letter from Mayor’s office regarding my request to amend the agreement with language regarding issuing an alcohol license. I must say this struck me as odd considering the agreement between the city and owner/developer expressly stated no city services for fire/police.”

Reynolds: “I’m a little confused by your response on this one, since the letter from the mayor seems quite clear. Essentially, he’s just saying that they can’t ‘pre-reject’ someone who hasn’t actually applied for a license. Your references to ‘city services for fire/police’ seem very out of place in this paragraph.”

May 18

Holtzclaw: “(I) received email from local Volunteer Fire Department expressing liability concerns and that while informal discussions had taken place, no formal agreement was in place with the city. Excerpts from that email follow:

‘I saw in the paper where Senator Holtzclaw had questions about the annexation of Bay Hill Marina before voting. I have not been approached by anyone about this except for one informal meeting with Mayor (Ronnie) Marks and Chief (Bryan) Thornton. The paper is also reporting that Athens has secured an agreement with Clements VFD, which they do not. The favor is, would you make Senator Holtzclaw aware of this and that I would be glad to have a conversation with him about all of this. I’m really concerned that there may be some misinformation flowing through that will ultimately hurt Clements VFD.’”

Reynolds: “Going back to my earlier comments, the agreement did not read that a contract had to be secured before the bill was signed into law. I’m sure that whoever brought these concerns forward had absolutely valid reasons for doing so, but they could have been fleshed out during the contract negotiation portion between the city and the VFD.”

May 19

Holtzclaw: “Last day of the Legislative Session. HB579 is in position to pass but it is apparent that their (sic) are several outstanding issues regarding this annexation by legislation that need to be addressed. A decision was made to not pass the legislation this year.”