9/15/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 15 1952 ' a®o 51 c P1; In return for your efforts to get alterations made in the temporary quarters, the Judge would, of course, agree to make no reference to any proposal to alter the building as an admission of ligbility in any civil case that the Judge might bring later on. The Judge would also agree not to include, as a portion of any.future lawsuit, any prayer to have a court order the renovation of the main courthouse building or the administrative complex. I hope this has been of some use to clarify our respective positions. If you have any questions, please contact me. I hope your efforts to present this to the County Commission meet with success. With kindest regards. Sincerely, MICHAEL D. ERIKSEN Commissioner Bird noted that unfortunately the Judge is not the only one involved in a jury trial - there are citizens, jurors, attorneys, etc., and we are asking them to be a part of these proceedings in a facility, which he did not feel is representative of Indian River County. It has inadequate parking, inadequate restroom facilities, bare bone walls, etc. Lengthy discussion continued as to the possible need for additional restrooms, and it was stressed that we do not actually have the complete picture of what is involved and what the total cost might be. Since these alterations are to be subject to the approval of the Judge, Commissioner Fletcher felt it should be made very clear whether the Judge just has to okay the alterations or whether we have to prove that they are not harmful to him. He also doubted that the projected $4,650 represented the total cost involved and did not feel the Board could make a judgment without knowing everything that will be involved. The length of time that would be needed to obtain site plan approval was discussed, and it was noted that we have not had any indication that the Judge is going to try to use the renovated County Courtroom. It was felt that a letter should be sent to Judge Stikelether advising him that 74