HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/1982Wednesday, May 26, 1982
The ,.Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, May 26, 1982, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher,
Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Also present were David L. Greene, Assistant
County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the
Board of County Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance
Director; and Virginia Hargreaves and Janice Caldwell,
Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced
that this was a continuation of the May 19, 1982 meeting:
Vice Chairman Fletcher led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
The Chairman asked if there were any additions to the
Agenda.
Commissioner Lyons requested adding the following: a
report on the status of the courtroom; a discussion of the
last letter from Judge Smith; and comments concerning
reapportionment.
a
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the three emergency items, as requested by
Commissioner Lyons.
Commissioner Bird discussed the position of Community
Development Director and understood that five people, who
lived a great distance from the County, were being
considered for the job. He was not in favor of having to
fund this travel.
SAY; 2 6
1982
r;
s
t1►Y
2 fi
pp
.80
Chairman Scurlock pointed out that Dr. C. B. Hardin
had
three top candidates for the position, and two of them live
close by.
Chairman Scurlock requested adding an item concerning a
4
Seminar on Finance to the Agenda.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of the emergency item, as requested by the
Chairman.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Approval to purchase IBM Displaywriter Systems
Finance Director Barton reviewed the following material
with the Board:
To: Board of County Camniss i oners
From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Re: Exercise of Purchase Option for Word Processors
The word processing system, consisting of two display writers, two dual
diskette drives and a printer, was installed in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's
office in July, 1*981. The system was placed on IBM's lease/rental plan with
option to purchase. The total monthly lease amount is $792.00, annualized at
$9,504.00. `
The software currently in use on the display writers, Textpack 2, provides
for conventional.wordprocessing features, such as: editing, scanning and spelling
diction,3ry. 11owever two higher level versions of the !,oftwarc: are available which
provides extended wordprocessing capability. Textpack 3 provides capability for
columnar presentations and arithmetic relationships between columns. Textpack-4
provides communication facility with external data files for enhanced customizing
of form letters and reports. Textpacks 3 and 4 each require some upgrading of the
display writers they are installed on.
By exercising the purchase option on the installed equipment, at this time, the
system can be acquired for a net purchase price, after applying purchase accruals,
of $17,594.00. If the system is future upgraded or enhanced by the installation of
Textpack 3 for both display writers and the necessary support features, the entire
system cost will be $19.094.00. Using IBM's installment purchase plan with payments
being amortized over five years at ll%, monthly costs including principal, interest
and maintenance will be $602.00, annualized at $7,220.00. This will result in an
annual saving of $2,284.00 on the system and provide enhanced word processing
capability.
In order to provide both additional word processinq capab;lity and to be able
to access data files for customized form letters, it is proposed that one additional
display writer and dual diskette drive be'purcha-,ed with Textpack 4 and related
support features. The additional equipment will cost $8,805.00. With a 10Z down
payment, this equipment can be acquired on IBM's installment purchase plan for
$246.00 monthly, annualized it $2,949.00.
It is my recommendation to outright purchase the current two display writer
plus one additional display writer for a total cost of $27,898.56 plus a monthly
maintenance charge of $268.50 (the maintenance has current funding but the basic
purchase will require a budget transfer as follows).
Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease
Boards Equipment 001-101-511-66.41 19,0911.
Clerk to B.C.C. Equipment 001-300-5:12-66.41- 8,805
B.C.C: Res. for Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 27,899•
Mr. Barton referred to the last paragraph of his memo
and advised. that the following adjustments needed to be
made:
Line
1:
$17,320
instead
of
19,094
Line
2:
$ 9,487
instead
of
8,805
Line 3: $26,807 instead of 27,899
The above figures were received recently, causing the total
figure to be $1,100 less than the original figure. He then
explained the expenses that were allocated between the Board
and the Clerk. Mr. Barton pointed out that all capital
goods of the County are owned by the Boand.
Brief discussion ensued.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the
Finance Director's recommendation, and authorized the
Chairman to sign the contracts for purchase of the IBM
Displaywriter Systems.
PUBLIC WORKS - COPY MACHINE FOR ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
The Board reviewed the following memorandum from Public
Works Director Davis:
49 r
MAY 26 1982 3
MAY 2 6 198
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 10, 1982
the Board of County Commissioners
FILE:
THRU: David L. Greene SUBJECT: Request to Purchase New Copy
Assistant County Administrator Machine tor''Road and Bridge
Division
FROM: ''�`J REFERENCE
James W. Davis, P.
S'
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Road and Bridge Division is in dire need of a new copy machine.
The one presently.in use by our Department as well as Fleet Manage-
ment is an antiquated 660 Xerox from Judge Stikelether's Office.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
.
The -Road and Bridge Division has found it necessary to copy plat
books and tax maps for field reference. In the -past, it has been
necessary to depend on the Engineering Department to supply us
with copies. This entails special trips to the Administration
Building which could be avoided. It has also been our experience
that when trying to copy documents, such as bills or invoices that
are smaller than letter size, they w.ull jam and if on colored paper,
will not copy.
Paper is wasted with jams on the 660 Xerox and the cost of repairs
exceeds $75.00 per hour. The cost of this new copier will increase
at least 20% on October 1, 1982.
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative #1
Purchase a new copy machine via State contract. This choice has
been cleared with the Purchasing Division and is as per County
Standard Operating Procedure. Cost is $3,328.00 plus install-
ation charge of $70.00.
x
To purchase the copier, a line transfer is necessary from the
Road and Bridge Division budget. Transfer from #102-214-541-66.42
(Automotive Capital Outlay). Transfer $2298.00 to #102-214-541-66.41,
(Office Furn. & Equip.) this account has a balance of approx. $1100.00.
The unencumbered balance in 102-214-541-66.42 is $115,174.00.
We have excess funds in this account since less expensive
graders and endloaders were purchased in 1982.
Alternative #2
4
Do not purchase a copier and continue to maintain and use the
660 Xerox.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that a motion be made authorizing the Road and
Bridge Division to line transfer $2,298.00 from account #102-214-
541-66.42 to Account #102-214-541-66.41 and approve the purchase
of a new copy machine for $3,398.00 including installation.
W
F.
Mr. Davis responded that they do not have a machine
that is adequate for their needs; they must have one that
will copy maps and reproduce lightly colored invoices. He
added that they had worked their request through the
Purchasing Division, who recommended buying a Savin under
State contract for a total cost of $3,398, which included
installation and a one-year warranty.
Commissioner Bird advised the Board that he recently
purchased a Sharp 741 copier locally for $1,800, and
suggested to the Purchasing Department that they check into
that possibility.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to table this
matter until the Purchasing Agent could be present.
The Motion.died for lack of a second.
- Dennis Gentile, of the Road & Bridge Department, came
before the Board and discussed various copy machines and
their costs.
Commissioner Bird felt there should be some
computations made of the various machines being discussed.
Mr. Davis suggested the staff be authorized to go
through such an analysis and purchase the most economic
unit.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher that the.
Administrator be authorized to expend up to $2,500 on the
purchase of a copy machine after a study has been made on
the Savin and Sharp copiers.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his Motion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher for the Board to table any final
action on this matter until staff can advise the Board at
the next meeting of their findings.
MAY 2 6 19-82-
9 W EI5
BOOK 49 PAW81
MAY 2-6 1992
Assistant Administrator Greene noted that there would
not be sufficient time to gather this information as the
cut-off time for the next meeting's Agenda is at noon today.
Commissioner Bird withdrew his Motion, and Commissioner
4
Fletcher his second.
On Motion made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board 'unanimously agreed to
authorize the staff to spend up to $2,500 to purchase a
copier of their choice, for a three year period; that the
Board be supplied the back-up material to show justification
f
of the purchase; and that the funds for this purchase be
transferred from Account #102-214-541-66.42 to Account
#102-214-541-66.41.
EQUIPMENT FOR TRAFFIC DIVISION
Mr. Davis reviewed the following information with the
Board:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 10, 1982 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
4
THRU: David L. Greene,
Acting County Administrator SUBJECT: Request to Purchase Equipment for
Traffic Division
FROM: Jim Davis, P.E. REFERENCES:
Public Works Dire 1tor
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Traffic Division is in need of replacing two vehicles which are due for
major rebuilding. The 1975 Chevrolet sign truck is presently burning oil,
has been driven over 100,000 miles, has been on fire previously, and will require
much maintenance within the next 6 months. The Traffic Engineer's vehicle is a
1973 Ford Maverick. Metal fatigue, rusting, and repair work has been identified
by the Vehicle Maintenance Division for this vehicle. -
Also, since the Traffic Division was initiated October, 1981, other minor capital
items have been identified which could be purchased with currently budgeted Road
and Bridge funds.
i
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
A line transfer of $17,500.00 is.requested from Account #111-214-541-66.44
(Traffic Signals and Markers) into Account # 111-214-541-66.42 (Automotive).
Approximately $30,000.00 is available in 66.44 that may advantageously be used
to purchase capital equipment. These "excess" dollars resulted from three (3)
conditions.
1. Increased efficiency in the sign shop's use of materials;
2. Increased selectivity in posting traffic control signs; and
3. Elimination of funding (through FDOT participation) or deferred (to FY82-83)
for signalization of the intersection of 8th Street and SR S.
The following schedule summarizes the requested budget transfer and proposed
use:
Transfer to 66.42 (Automotive):
Truck chassis/cab, 1 ton HD
(vehicle #100 replacement)
Truck, economy, w/top
(vehicle #73 replacement
Total
$10,500.00
$ 7,000.00
Also, the following equipment is needed to supply the Traffic Division:
ADC Dye Cutter Set, 6" FHWA Series"ID" $ 650.00
Traffic Counters, recorder type, 2)000.00
2 @ $1,000
Traffic Counter Supplies 500.00
Total 3,150:00
A line transfer of #3,150, from Account number 111-214-541-66.44 (Traffic Signals
and barkers) into Account # 111-214-541-66.41 (Office Furniture and Equipment)
is requested.
Alternatives include delaying this request until next year's budget, however,
this is not recommended since both vehicles may need major repair prior to
October, 1982.
RECO'NSIENDATIONS AND FLWING
It is recommended that a motion be made to 1) authorize a line transfer of
$17,500. from Account #111-214-541-66.44 (Traffic Signals and Markers)to Account
# 111-214-541-66.42 (Automotive) in order for the Traffic Division to purchase
replacement vehicles for Vehicle # 100 (1 ton cab and chassis) and vehicle #,73
(1973 Ford Maverick).
2) Authorize a line transfer of $3,150. from Account #111-214-541-66.42
(Traffic Signals and Markers) to Account # 111-214-541-66.41 (Office Furniture
and Equipment) in order for the Traffic Division to purchase traffic Equipment.
MAY,2'6 1982 4 f814
7
MAYY 26
1982 .AM
�
Brief discussion
followed about the 6"
Cutter
Set
requested to be purchased.
Michael Orr, Traffic Engineer, reported that the 6"
letters are needed to make warning signs to be in
6
conformance with federal sign standards. The County
currently has the 2" and 4" sizes that are used for making
street name signs, but these are not adequate for making
advanced warning signs.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the
R
recommendation to purchase replacement vehicles and traffic
equipment as indicated in the memorandum dated May 10, 1982
from Public works Director Davis.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ETHANOL FUELS
Assistant County Administrator Greene reviewed his
memorandum dated May 11, 1982, and a letter from the City
Manager of St. Petersburg, as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: May 11, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Consortium
Re: Ethanol Fuels.
FROM: REFERENCES:
REFERENCES:
David L. Greene
Assistant County Administrator
Attached please find copy of correspondence from City of St.
Petersburg. As is indicated in the correspondence, the City
of St. Petersburg and Orange County are in the process of
inviting Cities and Counties.through out the State to partici-
pate in a consortium of local governments to explore the production.
and use of ethanol fuels. The intent is to establish an alterna-
tive.fuel which will meet future needs of -local governments at a
reasonable cost. _
The group is asking each participating local government to contrib-
ute $5000.00 towards the support of this program. The initial
$5,000.00 would be necessary in order to commence the investigation
required and to ascertain steps and actions to be taken in order to
determine the viability of the concept.
RECOW4ENDATION
It is recommended that the Commission give consideration to this
request and authorize Staff to contact the representatives of
the corsortium as well as representatives of the Florida Inovation
Group and invite them to a future County Commission meeting in
order that the Commission may at that time make a decision as to
whether or not it desires to become a member of the consortium.
CITY
OF
ST PETERSBURG
THE SUNSHINE CITY
April 16, 1982
Mr. Jack Jennings A°;; 182
County Administrator n.,
Room' 115 Courthouse t., !•,t_*,,_
- _ Vero Beach, FL 32960
G
Good Morning, Mr. Jennings: dQ
J y 4
The City of St. Petersburg and Orange County are i' e
process of inviting several cities and counties in Florida
to participate in a consortium of. local governments to
explore the production and use of` ethanol fuels. This
program may partially answer our future needs for automotive
fuel at reasonable cost while also returning significant
revenues to the participating local governments.
Since the 1979 fuel shortages, there has been substan-
-tial interest in using alcohol as a vehicular fuel, either
in pure form or as an extender (gasohol). The Energy
Security Act of 1980 calls for the annual production of ten
billion gallons of fermentation alcohol by 1990, about 10%
of the total U.S. gasoline pool. Present annual production
of ethanol is estimated at 250 million gallons.
Our Florida consortium of governments plans to
investigate:
1) The legal steps required to incorporate a
non-profit local government consortium to
cooperatively guarantee the purchase of a fixed
-amount of ethanol each year, and/or build and
operate an ethanol plant(s).
2) The availability of land owned by governments on
which feedstock for the plant(s) could be grown
and the potential financial return to the
participating governments from such use.
3) The availability of private capital for
construction and operation of an ethanol plant if
commitments by local government to provide
feedstock and to purchase the production were
present.
MAY 2 61,9829 Q*E $16.
MAY 26 198
ADA 49 ' _
4) The feasibility, including a technical and cost
analysis, of converting vehicles to the burning of
pure ethanol.
5) Financial advantage of using ethanol to produce
gasohol for use in municipal fleets.
6) The availability of fuel such as methane from
landfills, low pressure steam from garbage to
energy facilities, waste 'heat from utility
operations, etc. with which to powbr an ethanol
plant and the potential financial return to the
participating governments.
We are requiring each participating government to
contribute $5,000 to support this program. To date, ten
Florida jurisdictions (St. Petersburg, Orange County, Ft.
Lauderdale, Clearwater, Kissimmee, Lee County, Melbourne,
Manatee County, Jacksonville, and Pinellas County) have
committed to the program with another 15 seriously
considering participation. Governments choosing not to
participate wi]l not be allowed a second option at a later
date in order -to protect the investment of the initial
supporters.
The legal work during this project will be conducted by
-Clint Brown, a Tampa based attorney, who has extensive ex-
perience in working with local governments.- The analysis on
feedstock and vehicles will be conducted by the Florida
Innovation Group who will contract with appropriate techni-
cal and agricultural resources to successfully complete the
analysis.
I am firmly convinced that the future holds nothing but
escalating fuel prices as well as possible shortages for
local government. I call your attention to the enclosed
articles from the March 15, 1982 issue of Forbes Magazine
and the September/October, 1981 issue of the Harvard
Business Review. The Harvard Business Review article is
alerting private sector companies to get prepared for coming
shortages. I most certainly feel that local government
should share the concern of the private sector in regard to
what the future holds for fossil fuels. A steady source of
ethanol would permit- us to extend our supplies. A
guaranteed- purchase agreement with an alcohol plant could
provide a substantial price advantage. The use of pure
alcohol would reduce our dependency on gasoline as our only
primary fuel. The potential of local government equity in
ethanol facilities in partnership with the private sector
also offers potentially attractive new revenue sources for
Florida local governments.
We want to get this project underway during June, 1982
so I ask you to seriously consider and confirm your
government's participation and financial support as soon as
possible. The Florida Innovation Group will serve as the
agent to receive the funds for this program. FIG will set
up a special account, provide monthly financial statements,
and disburse funds upon approval by a Project Financial
Committee of participating local governments. Either Paul
Yingst of my staff or Bob Havlick of the Florida', Innovation
Group will contact your office within 'the next few weeks to
determine your interest and need for a detailed briefing in
your jurisdiction.
The financial risk we are asking you to consider is
small when compared to the potentials for a guaranteed,
renewable fuel supply and new revenue sources. I hope you
will join us.
Sincerely,
17
n N. Harvey (J
_ 1 -y Manager }
Mr. Greene recommended that we keep an open mind and
invite representatives to a future Board meeting so they can
present their concept; then this matter could be explored
further.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board accept the
recommendation of the Assistant Administrator, as indicated
in his memorandum dated May 11, 1982.
Commissioner Lyons felt this was a very good idea.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR DR. C. B. HARDIN
Assistant Administrator Greene suggested that C. B.
Hardin's salary be increased to the level that the
Administrator vitas being"'paid annually of $35,587.50, which
would be the interim compensation from June 4th until a new
Administrator was hired. Mr. Greene added that June 4th
would be his last day of work with the County, and it was
the beginning of a new pay period.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, -seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the interim
compensation of $35,587.50 for C. B. Hardin, beginning
June 4, 1982, until a new Administrator was hired.
Discussion then turned to the Assistant Administrator's
salary, which was $32,800 a year. The Board felt they were
remiss in not paying the Administrator's salary of
$35,587.50 to Mr. Greene during the time he acted as
Administrator, and should give him some retroactive
consideration.
The 'Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that Mr. Greene be paid at the $35,587.50
rate for the period of time he acted as Administrator, and
that he be given a letter of recommendation.
MAY 26 1982 11 -
QIIi�F1"--
9. f4f
MAY 2 6 198
Commissioner Wodtke thought that Mr. Greene was
entitled to severance pay, and amended the Motion to include
one month's severance,pay.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that he would rather
compensate instead of giving severance pay.
The amendment died for lack of a second.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
CIRCUIT CONFLICT COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT
The Board reviewed the following material:
f
. � m
MARTIN COUNTY OFFICE: OFFICE OF
(MAIN OFFICE)
SUITE 215, COURTHOUSE ANNEX ELTON H. SCHWARZ
P. O. BOX 2314
STUART. FLORIDA X33495-2314 PUBLIC DEFENDER
(305) 283-6760 NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
SUNCOM: 479-1193
April 27, 1982
DIRECT LINES TO IGAIN OFFICE:
(305) 287-2966 (STUART)
( 305 ) 464-8564 ( FORT PIERCE)
( 305 ) 562-1515 (VERO BEACH)
(305) 746-7184 (WEST PALM BEACH)
(8t3) 763-7979 (OKEECHOBEE)
'REPLY TO: Stuart
Honorable Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Suite N-158
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Compensation of Attorneys Appointed to Handle Conflict Cases
Dear Mr. Scurlock:
I am pleased to advise that the Legislature appropriated
$71,400 to my office for Fiscal Year 19$2-83 to assist toward
compensation of court appointed attorneys in conflict cases.
A copy of the proviso language contained in the Appropriations
Act concerning this subject is enclosed herewith. Additional
information concerning allocation of the funds between the
varidus counfa.es an of er re ated matters is expected to be
I theZegis a ive a er o-i'nten w is s ouI:d be available
by-the--mi-ddi-e of --Ma
Since this becomes effective July 1, 1982, I would'suggest
that the Circuit Conflict Committee meet either the latter part
of May or the first of June so that we can try and decide what
we are supposed to do.
Since each Board of County Commissioners is to designate
by resolution a representative of the Board to serve on this
committee, I will appreciate your taking this matter up at
your next meeting and furnishing me with a copy of whatever
resolution is adopted.
12
0
l
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, that the Chairman of the' Board serve on
this committee, and that each Chairman thereafter continue
to serve.
Discussion followed, and the Board could not determine
who would best be suited to serve on the committee at this
time.
Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his Motion, and
Commissioner Bird withdrew his second.
On Motion made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed that the
Chairman should get together with the County Attorney and
come up with a suggestion as to the appropriate person to
serve on this committee by the next Board meeting. j
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND SOUTH BEACH WATER SERVICE
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the proposed Agreement
with the Board and advised that the City has agreed to it.
He referred to Section 1, Paragraph 5, and suggested that
the first phrase read: "....upon notification by the County
to the City that the subaqueous crossing is -complete and
that County is ready to provide service."
Motion was made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board approve the agreement as
amended, and authorize execution of thesagreement by the
Chairman.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried with a vote of 4 to 1, with Commissioner
Fletcher voting in opposition.
MAY 26' 1982
13 r
r r.
' 49 E821
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this,
qday of ,-
1982, by and between the CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida,
(City), and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Florida, (County),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into an
agreement dated the 16th day of September, 1981 entitled "Sough
Beach Water Service", and
WHEREAS, by paragraph 5 of that agreement the City
became obligated to convey certain items to the County by the lst
day.of November, 1981, and
WHEREAS, this deadline has not been met, and
WHEREAS, by paragraph 6 of the agreement the County
became obligated to let certain contracts within a six-month time
frame, and
WHEREAS, this six-month time frame was not met, and
WHEREAS, both parties have agreed to amend the agreement
dated September 16, 1981, accordingly.
t'
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the County agree to amend
that agreement as follows:
Section 1 - Paragraph 5
The first phrase of paragraph 5 "On or before the first
day of November..." shall be changed to "Upon notification by the
County to the City that the sub -aqueous crossing is complete and
that County is ready to provide service."
Section 2 - Paragraph 6
The six-month time frame for the letting of the contract
shall be extended by an additional 120 days.
Section 3 -.All Other Agreements to Remain the Same
Except for the agreements in Setion 1 and 2 of this
agreement, the agreement of September 16, 1901, shall remain in
-1- Ff-
i
W_
full force and effect.
ATTEST: CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
_ By 9#09 PfAirPIZ
City 'lerk Mayor
Approved a*; to form and Approved by:
legal sufficiency:
City Attorney City anage
ATTEST: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Clerk, Circuit urt Chairman, Board of C y
Y T�� �.� . Commissioners
Approved as to form and
legal ffia4en
n Attorney
7
f
.;� MAY49 `82a
TO: Board of DATE: May 11, 1982 FILE:
County Commissioners
FROM: Gary M. Brand
County Attorn
SUBJECT: Abandonment of Suit #81-09
Division of Administration,
State of Florida; Dept. of
Transportation and Indian
River County v. Paul Hofffian
REFERENCES:
When the County originally began proceedings to condemn property
for the extensioneof Barber Avenue to the proposed extension of
Indian River Boulevard one parcel was omitted. The parcel located
on the south side. of -the proposed intersection of Barber Avenue and
Indian River Boulevard running to the east was thought to be owned
by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement. Trust Fund of the State
of.Florida. When it -was determined that the State did not own the
parcel, Ralph Evans brought Case No. 8I-09 on behalf of :DOT and
Indian..River:.County to acquire the parcel. Subsequently, the
County formally abandoned current plans for the Indian River
Boulevard Extension. The law suit has laid dormant ever since.
The attorney for the property owner filed a --Motion to Dismiss the
condemnation suit for lack of progress and to tax attorney fees.
Instead of wasting the Court's time and incurring additional
attorney fees and expenses, I called Mr. Slinkman and suggested
that he write the letter that appears as an attachment to this
memorandum.
The County Attorney respectfully.requests your approval to execute
a voluntary dismissal of the law suit and further authorize payment
of a.$400.00 attorney fee to Mr. Slinkman.
On. Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously authorized the
County Attorney to execute a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal,
and that $400 be paid to Attorney Slinkman.
Attorney Brandenburg discussed the adjacent strip of
property that the County had acquired, through the original
condemnation, for a settlement of $2,000. The NS&T Bank of
New
York
is now
requesting
that
this settlement be paid;
then
the
County
would have
clear
title. He added that the
adjoining property owner may possibly be interested in
purchasing that strip of property from the County.
r
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Attorney be authorized to
negotiate with the bank regarding the $2,000 settlement for
this land, and that this matter be brought back to the
Board.
Lengthy discussion ensued, and it was determined there
would be no negotiation; the County owes the bank in New
York $2,000 to settle this matter.
Commissioner Fletcher excused himself at 9:35 o'clock
A.M. in order to attend the Emergency Medical Service
Committee meeting for a few minutes.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0, Commissioner
Fletcher being temporarily out of the Chambers.
CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS
The Attorney reviewed the following memorandum from Dr.
C. B. Hardin dated May 10, 1982:
r
.=card of County
Commissioners
CL.- , r
C. B. Hardin, r.,
FROM: Asst, to Co. Admin.
Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
May 10, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Moratorium on the
Issuance of Concealed Weapons'
Permits and Indian River
County
Ph.D.
REFERENCES:
The Board of County Commissioners at their March 3, 1982 meeting
imposed a moratorium on the issuance of concealed weapons' permits.
As the Commission recalls, the moratorium was imposed because of an
inconsistency between the course for firearms handling safety
required by the ordinance and that actually available from the
Sheriff's Department together with difficulties in processing back-
ground checks on applicants. Section 8-16 of the County Code of
Law and Ordinances provides as follows:
"The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, shall designate by resolution those
courses in instruction, satisfactory completion of which
_ is required for compliance with Section 8-12 of this
article, but in no case shall a course be designated
which fails as a minimum to meet the required criteria
for Class "G" statewide gun permits specified in Chapter
1C-3.17 of the Rules.of the Department of State for
private investigative agencies."
There are three alternatives available for eliminating the incon-
sistencies;
1- To make'the requirements of Section 8-16 of the County's Code
more lenient, thus complying with the current course available
at the Sheriff's -Department.
2- Request the Sheriff's Department to upgrade the course require-
ments to meet that specified in the County Code (i.e. required
criteria for Class G statewide gun permit).
3- Request the Sheriffs Department to review the criteria for
Class G statewide gun permits and recommend to the County
Commission a modified version of same that will satisfy the
needs of the County.
Because the requirements for such a course clearly fall within the
bailiwick of the Sheriff's Department, these writers recommend the
third alternative. It should be noted that once the course
requirements are specified by the Sheriff's Department and adopted
by the County Section 8-24 of the current law would allow the
County to charge an appropriate administrative fee to cover the
cost of classroom or range instruction.
Respectfully submitted,
C. B. Hardin, Jr., Ph.D. ,
Asst. to County Admin./
Personnel Director
L
G �
y Braude uro
_ C un y Atto
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board accept Alternate Three in
the memo from C. B. Hardin of May 10, 1982.
A brief discussion followed, and it was determined that
a representative from the Sheriff's Department and a
representative from the County would meet within 30 days and
review the procedures for the issuance of permits for
concealed weapons, and that the moratorium be extended until
the matter is settled.
Commissioner Wodtke offered to act as the County
representative and work with the Sheriff's Department in
this regard.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously, with Commissioner Fletcher being
temporarily out of the Chambers.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING "KTW" AMMUNITION
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Attorney to advertise for a public hearing regarding the
proposed ordinance prohibiting the possession of a teflon
coated handgun or firearm ammunition currently sold under
the brand name "KTW."
CONSENT ORDER FOR TREASURE COAST UTILITIES
Attorney Brandenburg requested that•no action be taken
on the matter regarding the Consent Order for Treasure Coast
Utilities, as he was not comfortable with one of the
provisions. He advised that he would bring it back to the
Board once he has worked out the provision.
QUAY DOCK ROAD
Attorney Brandenburg explained the following memorandum
dated May 11, 1982:
MAY 2.6 1982
MAY Z6
TO: Board of County
Commissioners of
Indian River County
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
191#E827
: {
DATE: May 11, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Quay Dock Road
REFERENCES:
Mr. Holmes has commenced Case No. 82-67 in the Circuit Court for
Indian River County. This law suit is an attempt to end a dispute
that has been ongoing for many years over the ownership of the por-
tion of Quay Dock -Road that runs through Government Lot 3 to its
point of intersection with the Indian River. The County Attorney,
County Administrator and County Engineer have met with Mr.
Roddenberry, attorney for Mr. Holmes, and Mr. Telkamp, the property
owner to the north, in an effort to resolve the dispute and forever
put to rest the questions involved. The letter attached to this
memorandum represents a proposal from the concerned property
owners. The proposal is as follows:
A. Mr. Telkamp will convey by quit claim deed all property lying
25' north of the center line of Quay Dock Road. This will
forever settle the ownership of the north one-half of the road-
way.
B. Mr. Telkamp will convey by quit claim deed the property located
beyond the end of the pavement extending to the Indian River
south of the drainage ditch and north of the Holmes/Telkamp
line. This will forever settle the question of access all the
way to the Indian River. This also corresponds to the historic
route to the old dock.
C. The County will improve and maintain the drainage ditch on the
north side of the road (requiring work on approximately the
last 1001). This is desirable from the County standpoint of
improving drainage in the area.
D. The County will culvert the ditch on the north side of Quay
Dock Road at a point which would provide convenient access to
the northern property. This culverting is necessary as clear-
ing and deepening of the ditch will make it impossible for the
north property owner to reach his property.
E. Provide a turnaround on the north side of the road lined with
cutoff telephone poles or other appropriate traffic channeling
devices (provide culvert in ditch if,necessary) to provide
enough space for a turnaround.
F. Agree that the area between the terminus of the road and the
Indian River be left in the same natural condition that it has
been in for the last forty years.
G. Accept a drainage easement from Mr. Holmes for the ditch on the
south side of Quay Dock Road.
H. Place a culverted turnaround at the southern side of the
intersection of Government Lot 3 and Quay Dock Road. This will
provide a means of turnaround for individuals who do not desire
to go all the way to the river.
i
I. Provide appropriate signage at the west boundary of Government
Lot 3 indicating that Quay Dock Road has been designated by the
County Commission as a scenic route., indicating the .importance
of this designation, giving a brief history of the road and
possibly designating the area as a bird or nature sanctuary.
J. File a corrected maintenance map showing the road with a path
as outlined in the foregoing paragraphs.
The County Attorney recommends approval of this proposal for the
following reasons;
1. It will forever settle the public's right to travel the entire
length of Quay Dock Road all the way to the Indian River.
2. It will improve the drainage of all the properties along Quay
Dock Road and insure the County's ability to maintain said
drainage in the future.
3. It will require amendment of the maintenance map to accurately
describe Quay Dock Road as it historically developed.
4. The cost to the County of implementing these improvements will
be less in the long run than the cost of proceeding with
further litigation which may have uncertain results.
Resp qBrand
mitted,
urg
ty
Attorney Brandenburg displayed a map for the Board,
and explained the situation on Quay Dock Road.
Chairman Scurlock interjected that Attorney Roddenberry
was on his way to the Board meeting; he would like to
participate in the discussion.
a
The Board decided to postpone this matter until
Attorney Roddenberry arrived.
Commissioner Fletcher returned to the Commission
Chambers at 9:45 o'clock A.M. He briefly discussed the
proposed ordinance regarding the ammunition, and requested
that Reed Knight, Jr. be contacted in order to get his
feelings on the matter.
MAY 2 6 1982 60% 9 Few2$
21
MAY 26 19$2
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REPORT
Chairman Scurlock advised that at the Finance Advisory
Committee meeting, they analyzed the scope of services for
the auditing firm, and recommended it be conveyed to the
Audit Selection Committee. He added that they also talked
of the possible need for a Financial Advisor for the County.
The Chairman continued that they had looked at the scope
of work in a similar community, and will soon be coming forth
with a recommendation to the Board.
BUDGET WORKSHOP - REQUESTED BY SHERIFF
Chairman Scurlock reviewed the following memorandum
dated May 13, 1982:
70: 'Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Chairman
J:V�: Liz Forlani
DATA: May 13, 1982
S^ r^ 1• Request from Roy Raymond
Sheriff's Office.
R.:FEEREt 0 IES:
Mr. Raymond is requesting that the County Commission hold a
workshop prior to the budget workshop in order to review three
capital expense items and to have expertise in each field give a
presentazion. The following are the items to be discussed:
1.
Change over in the present telephone system.
Southern Bell will mace the presentation
2. Conversion of patrol vehicles to propane fuel
This is a big initial expense, but over the years this
conversion could save money
3. Word Processor Machines
Lanier representative will make presentation.
June 9th, the second Wednesday in June, is an open daze ain.%d.
wou..d be convenient for Mr. Raymon;: and the Southern Bel
representative but whatever: date is convenient for t :e Co,:::issic
will oe all right with him and he will make the necessGr:,
arrangements.
.
Mr. Raymond stated that if you wish to get more de aile
regarding these items, please give him a call and he will go :.ver
then, wit.. you.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously agreed to hold
a workshop with the Sheriff on June 9, 1982, with the hours
to be determined later.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -County travel for the Chairman, and a member of the
Finance Committee, to attend a Governmental Seminar in
Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, on June 11, 1982.
MOBILE HOME ADVISORY COMMITTEE - AT -LARGE APPOINTMENT
Commissioner Fletcher reviewed the following resume
from Belle Taylor:
O
4. 4atoo
h
U � •
MAY 2 6.1982 49 830
1
23
MAY 2 6 1982
UIX
83
Commissioner Fletcher recommended that an interview be
set up with Ms. Taylor.
Liz Forlani, Administrative Assistant to the Board,
stated that she would make the arrangements for an interview
with Ms. Taylor.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE - REPORT
Commissioner Fletcher commented that a meeting was
taking place at the present time in the Conference Room of
the Emergency Medical Services Committee. He advised that
Dr. Lucas was presenting a plan that would be analyzed by
the committee members.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE - REPORT
The Board reviewed the following memorandum from
Jim Davis, Public Works Director, as follows:
`�• Co.i-.issioner Grover Fletcher
Cha.L.,Mn, Transportation
Planning Conzuttee
VIA: iJ _" :.. Greene,
Assistant County Administrator
.~ �.V� .V• h��✓
T im Davis, G
Public Works Director
, uay.14, 1982 a i 3 EZ:
U 3J &EEC T: Transportation P1a1mi,:g CoZZMit Lee
Report May 11, 1982
RErFE EN,CES:
T::e following action was taken by the Transportation Planrdng Co,zittee
for your report to the Board of Coimty Com, .issioners
1) 16th Street.T.;I.P.
a. Project to include cost of student pick-up/drop-off in front
of school (see sketch) estimated cost $45,000.
b. Amend speed limit from. 35-40 :MIPH to 30 MPH (US 1 to 43rd Av).
2) Access to Sebastian Elementary School
a. Proceed to pave Powerline Road;
b. Continue work on ROW acquis."...on of Lateral "A1l north of
CR 510 into Sc'nariarn Drive.
3�- T •O S L.. met L-ohtir.g
a. ?olicy raco..Lmerded of urser meas for .
1. 36 t;h' &.37-&, Sts. east of HS 1 AM
2. M 505A @ Lundberg Road Y ;.RCC
Commissioner Fletcher referred to Item 3 in the
memorandum regarding Street Lighting, and stated that it was
the unanimous decision of the Transportation Planning
Committee that the cost of such lighting be borne by the
user. In this case, it would be the hospital and the Junior
college who would foot the bill.
Mr. Davis interjected that the Committee agreed with
the philosophy that the user should pay, but he did not get
a firm decision of who the user was; it was not quite clear
MAY 2 6 l 8z P
25 i
junior college and the hospital, or the people living in the
area.
Lengthy discussion followed.
Commissioner Lyons reminded the Board that some people
on 37th Street were paying $1 a month for street lights, and
he felt it would be unfair to go ahead and light the rest of
the street as a contribution from the General or Municipal
Fund and charge those people for the street lights.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if anybody had approached
the hospital or City to see about joint participation in
street lighting.
Mr. Davis reported that it had been one of the
recommendations to the Board prior to them passing it on to
the Transportation Planning Committee.
Discussion ensued about the possibility of setting up a
lighting district in the area of the hospital.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board inform the junior
college that it was not its policy to place lights on access
streets in individual cases.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that the junior college did
not request the light - he had brought it up before the
Board for discussion.
Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion, and
Commissioner Fletcher withdrew his second.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that the City of Vero Beach
has a transmission station near the intersection of Lundberg
Road and Kings Highway; possibly they could illuminate that
station and at the same time; the intersection would be
illuminated.
Mr. Davis commented that, he would check into that
possibility, as it was a good suggestion.
i
After a brief discussion, the Board felt it would also
be a good idea to review the current list of lights.
Commissioner Fletcher next discussed Item 2 regarding
access to Sebastian Elementary School. He advised that a
cost analysis was being done regarding the paving of
Powerline Road. He continued that the Committee requested
that staff be given permission to continue work on
right-of-way acquisition of Lateral A.
Mr. Davis stated that the County has maintained a
portion of that road.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, that the Board accept the recommendation
of the Transportation Planning Committee -regarding
acquisition of voluntary rights-of-way, with the help of the
Road & Bridge Department. -
Brief discussion followed.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Fletcher referred to Item la regarding
Sixteenth Street. He stated that the gas tax money should
be used for the project, and improvements on the school
property should be borne by the school.
Mr. Davis advised that the drop-off point for students
is on 17th Avenue; the School Board has ,agreed to do other
traffic -related problems internally.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously accepted the
recommendation of the Transportation Planning Committee in
connection with the 16th Street Project to include the
student pick-up and drop-off in front of the school.
Commissioner Fletcher referred to Item lb regarding the
speed limit.
MAY 2 6 1982 saox9 $34
27
MAY 261982
49 X835 1
A brief discussion ensued about various speed limits,
synchronization of lights, and the various public buildings
in the area.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, that the Board accept the
recommendation of the Transportation Planning Committee to
amend the speed limit from 35-40 mph to 30 mph from U.S. #1
to 43rd Avenue.
Chairman Scurlock felt this was not a permanent change
and it could be readdressed.
V
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
The Board recessed briefly at 10:35 o'clock A.M., and
Deputy Clerk Hargreaves took over from Deputy Clerk Caldwell
for the remainder of the meeting.
ADD ON ITEMS
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he needed some
clarification in regard to the discussion held at the last
meeting in regard to the $1.00 per run recommended
for the North County Fire District and he would like that
added under his items today.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above
emergency item to today's agenda as requested by
Commissioner Fletcher.
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION RE QUAY DOCK ROAD
Attorney Brandenburg continued to discuss the basis for
settlement, noting that if the improvements are made and the
terms of the settlement are accepted, Mr. Holmes then would
dismiss the lawsuit. With regard to agreeing that the area
between the terminus of the road and the Indian River will
be left in the same natural condition that it has been in
the last 40 years, he suggested we talk in terms of the
County being able to make certain improvements which would
correspond to what was historically in that area.
Commissioner Wodtke felt it would be preferable if the
wording in Paragraph F read something more like "agree that
the area between the terminus of the road and the Indian
River be left as much as possible in its present state and
the County would have the right to make any improvements to
restore it to its historic condition." He noted that while
he did not want to put a dock or bridge there, he felt the
present wording would, in essence, restrict us from doing
anything with it. .
Chairman
Scurlock agreed,
stating that he
would
MAY 2 6
1982
29
Box
p f:$
MAS Z 6.1982
envision possibly a pathway, a gazebo, or some type of
look -out over the river.
Attorney Roddenbury stated that he could only take this
back to Mr. Telkamp, but he did not see the type of thing
the Chairman is talking about as being a problem.
Motion was made by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, to approve the settlement regarding Quay
Dock Road as proposed in Attorney Brandenburg''s 'letter of
May 11, 1982, and as modified by the wording suggested by
Commissioner Wodtke for Paragraph F.
f
Leon Blanton took the floor and emphasized that the
public believes this property belongs to the people and they
do not want any stipulation in the deed that will restrict
use of the property by the general public in the future. 'He
further noted that the reason the property has been in this
condition for the last 40 years is that the situation has
been so hostile, people did not use it. Mr. Blanton
continued that while he would not oppose it, he felt the
turn -around proposed in Paragraph H was a total waste of the
public's money. He appreciated the fact that Mr. Holmes and
Mr. Telkamp are working with us and did not want to waste
money on a court action, but felt that with an attorney as
competent as he believed Mr. Brandenburg to be that the jury
never would give away this property which belongs to the
public.
Attorney Brandenburg believed if you take into
consideration the amount of money that would be spent in
litigation vs. expending a few dollars on the package
settlement proposed, it is well worth it. He did believe
the results of the litigation'are uncertain, and that is why
he is recommending settlement. 1.
Mr. Blanton reiterated that this belongs to the County;
the County should be able to designate what they want to do
se
with it in the future; and he did not want to see it tied up
in legalities.
Commissioner Lyons personally had no problem with some
limitations on the use of the property since he did not
believe we want that road to be the terminus of a road going
across the river.
Chairman Scurlock also did not anticipate us
constructing.major improvements or a new traffic pattern
across the river, such as the 17th Street Bridge, but
believed we do need the ability to put in a nature trail and
possibly some structure to overlook the river.
Discussion continued re language to achieve this end.
Commissioner Fletcher and Commissioner Lyons restated
their previous Motion to approve the proposal set out in
Attorney Brandenburg's letter of May 11, 1982, as modified
by Mr. Wodtke's suggested wording that the area between the
terminus of the road and the Indian River be left in its
present state as much as possible and any improvements would
be made in keeping with the natural and historical character
of the property.
Chairman Scurlock called for the question. It was
voted on and carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION RE TAKE OVER OF BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Chairman Scurlock noted that the proposed County
take-over of the Building Department has been discussed for
quite a few years. He reported that Carolyn Long of Long
Associates, Inc., now has done a study in regard to the
proposed take-over, which he has reviewed, and, in addition,
he talked to the Treasure Coast Builders Association last
week and 'encouraged input from the building trades so that
when we do make this transfer, it can be done in an orderly
way. The Chairman believed that whenever this does take
place, .it should coincide with the start of a new budget
year.
MAY 2 6 1882
31
BOX �� WE 008
IAY 2 6 1982 neo 49 839
Considerable discussion ensued revolving around the
fact that the County, at present, is very short of key
personnel, i.e., the Administrator, Assistant Administrator
and head of the Planning & Zoning Department, and this may
4
not be the most appropriate time to make such a move. It
was further noted that six months' notification is required,
and Assistant Administrator Greene reported that in
February, 1982, a letter was sent to Vero Beach City Manager
John Little indicating a date of October 1, 1982, for the
proposed take-over.
f
Commissioner Wodtke felt the report by Long &
Associates was excellent, but pointed out that it is based
only on a one year period, and he believed we need more
background to get a better picture of the overall situation,
permit structure, personnel organization, etc., in order to
be able to determine whether this should be set up as a
joint operation or a County only department.
City of Vero Beach Finance Director, Tom Nason,
informed the Board that while he has not had any input from
the City Council on this matter, staff has reviewed it. If
the transfer went along with the previous letter of notifi-
cation, they would recommend the City retain their own.
Building Department; however, on the basis of a long range
setup where there would be the opportunity to negotiate and
come up with a common ground all could agree upon, they felt
something could be worked out. Mr. Nason continued that they
have prepared two budgets - one in which they continue as at
present and one based on the City continuing on its own.
He personally was of the opinion that they would like to
continue as a joint department at least for this year.
Discussion followed about the charges presently being
made to the joint enterprise by the City, the estimated
revenues, and the considerable amount of construction
activity in the County as opposed to the City. Chairman
0
a►
M
Scurlock felt the ratio is about 2/3 to 1/3. Mr. Nason
reported that the projected revenue for the County is
$180,000 and $147,000 for the City; it was noted that
although there is more activity in the County, there are
bigger and more costly projects in the City. Mr. Nason
agreed that the City is built up to about the 80% level.
The Board continued to review the many factors involved
that need to be addressed before making any transfer, and
Mr. Nason emphasized the need to address this jointly and
also the need for a further costs analysis re equipment and
time involved, etc.
Chairman Scurlock agreed there would be a question
about work in progress as well as many other items. He
pointed out that this take-over has been proposed for quite
a few years and believed it is time to seta time schedule
and do something specific.
Reference was made to the letter sent to the City in
February stating that the County would take over the
Building Department on October 1, 1982, and Chairman
Scurlock believed such letters should not be sent out
without the specifics being worked out first. He noted that
we have never received.a formal response from the City
indicating what they will or will not do.
Questions arose as to coordination between the
Building, Planning and Zoning Departments. Commissioner
Wodtke stated that he was firmly committed to the belief
that we need to have a County Building Department tied in
with our Planning & Zoning Departments as soon as
economically feasible and'that we also need a satellite
facility In the North County area, but he felt a lot more
needs to be done to work this all out.
Commissioner Lyons did not feel we need to settle all
the various.
problems now, but that
the main issue
is
to get
MAY 26:98
33
_.
MAY 26 1982 .9
841
a new Community Development Director and County Administra-
tor on board first. He wondered if the City of Vero Beach
would consider a situation where a certain number of months
after we have the necessary staff - even if this should
4
occur mid -year - we could effect the "marriage" or "divorce"
of this department.
Mr. Nason commented that he believed one of the things
absent so far has been contact with the city, and they would
like to be involved. He suggested setting up a committee
composed of two or three representatives from the County, 2
f
or 3 from the City and several from the building trades to
make a study and set up areas that can be agreed upon.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird that a letter be
directed to the City of Vero Beach informing them that we
would not be able to meet our timetable of October 1, 1982,
for forming a joint City -County Building & Zoning Depart-
ment; that we would like to readjust that timetable to
October 1, 1983; and that we also would proceed to form a
liaison committee made up of representatives from the City,
the County and the building trades for the purpose of laying
the groundwork for a proper transfer of these
responsibilities to a countywide Building & Zoning
Department.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed to second the Motion if it
could be stated that a decision would be reached sooner, and
Commissioner Bird agreed to include in the Motion that it
would be the burden of the committee to make a recommenda-
tion 6 months before. October 1, 1983. Commissioner Wodtke
seconded the Motion.
Building Director Esther 'Rymer wished to speak to the
comment made in the report done by Long Associates, Inc.,
about two inspectors riding around together. She felt it is
necessary to know the whole workings of this department
before you can make an adequate study. With 96 million of
construction done in 1981 and 25 million for four months
this year, and only one plumbing inspector and one building
inspector.., Mrs. Rymer believed that they have done a very
good job and they never had had nothing to do. She
explained that they try to route their worksheets every day
so that inspections can be carried out in the most
economical and logical manner possible without wasting gas.
Sometimes the men ride together to avoid double trips to
make inspections and also this is how they train new
personnel.
Peter Robinson, builder and developer, commented that
the builders' main concern is having a good, efficient
building department and they don't care who controls it. He
believed the Building Department is running quite well right
now under Mrs. Rymer's control, and agreed that the Board
should take the time needed to review the situation as per
the Motion.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
REPORT ON TRIP TO VIEW JAIL IN PINELLAS COUNTY
Commissioner Lyons reported that members of the
sub -committee of the Public Safety Committee, which is
working on selection of an architect for design of a new
jail, traveled to Pinellas County to view the work done by
Watson Architects. He continued that yesterday they
interviewed -Watson and Company, and Frizzell Architects,
both of which seem to be good prospects. He commented that
Frizzell recently added a staff member who has quite a
record of jails which are of interest. Captain Bill Baird
will look'at one in Rome, Georgia, on his own, and
Commissioner Lyons suggested that we send Art Schereen to
view this also.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved
MAY 2 6 1982
�Qff
35 49 4
Jail Architect Selection to inspect the jail in Rome,
Georgia.
REQUEST OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR NEW RESOLUTION RE
BUILDING OF JAIL
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that in a
previous Resolution sent to the Department of Corrections we
only stated that we planned to build a jail within five
years provided we get state funding. The DOC apparently
does not feel that is a strong enough commitment, and they
f
would like to have us commit ourselves to a plan to build a
jail in the next three years. Commissioner Lyons
recommended that the Board go along with this request. He
pointed out that if we should put ourselves in a position
where we come under federal mandate in regard to building a
jail, the construction costs could increase considerably.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons that the Board
authorize preparation of a Resolution advising the head of
the State Department of Corrections, Mr. Wainwright, that we
are planning to build a jail in the next three years.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested adding a statement that
we plan to build based on availability of State funds, but
Commissioner Lyons did not believe that is necessary. He
commented that you can plan to build a jail, but if you
don't get funds, you don't build it.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Legislature is going
to have to address getting funds available for this type
activity and he felt this might encourage them in that
direction.
Commissioner Lyons argued that this simply continues to
wave a red flag at the person we are doing business with and
he did not want to aggravate the situation because he felt
we are playing with fire.
Commissioner Fletcher stated that he had no problem
with drawing up a new Resolution if the Attorney understands
the concerns of the Commission. He noted that he just
wanted to be sure that when we give our word, we are going
to be able to carry it out.
Commissioner Lyons pointed out that you won't know this
until you have the funds in hand, but you can always plan.
He believed it is in the Board's interest to pursue this.
Chairman Scurlock felt that we all realize that we must
have a jew jail facility within 3 to 5 years or some of the
prisoners will have to be turned loose. He personally did
not have a problem with a new Resolution.
Commissioner Lyons reported that the Public Safety
Committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to say we
are planning to have a -new jail in three years.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he was not against
agreeing we should have the jail in three years, but felt we
should have the necessary funds.
Commissioner Lyons continued to stress that the
Department of Corrections has asked that we submit a
stronger Resolution and he did not want to play games with
them or we might find that our interim improvements are not
sufficient to satisfy the State. Commissioner Lyons stated
that unless we have some satisfactory Motion he would have
no interest in continuing to work on the Jail committee.
Commissioner Fletcher seconded the Motion made by
Commissioner Lyons to authorize preparation of a Resolution
advising the State Department of Corrections that we are
planning to build a Jail within the next three years.
Discassion continued about possible methods of funding,
such as our portion of the increased_Sales Tax, etc., and
Commissioner Wodtke reiterated that he agrees with building
the jail in three years, but just worries about the funds.
MAYI 26 1982 Box 9PASS $4.� y
37
MAY 2,6; 1982 - oar :49 P .
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to stipulate and have it
reflected in the Minutes that his Aye vote was based on
d
availability of funds.
APPOINTMENT TO LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
Commissioner Lyons reported that David Brewster, who is
president of the Vero Beach Library Association, has been
recommended by their Board to be a member of the Library
Advisory Board.
R
Commissioner Wodtke recommended the appointment of
Ralph Evans to this Board as a representative of District 4.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously appointed David
Brewster and Ralph Evans to the Library Advisory Board.
STATUS OF FOURTH COURTROOM
Chairman Scurlock reported that he had received a
letter from C. E. Block Architect re the Annex Courtroom
renovations indicating that Mr. Block does not wish to
pursue working on this project. Mr. Block stated that since
the basic AIA contracts he submitted have not been
satisfactory to the County, he, therefore, would prefer that
we select someone else for this job.
Chairman Scurlock reviewed the events in regard to
negotiation of this contract including discussions with
Attorney Brandenburg and Commissioner Fletcher.
Commissioner Lyons asked if we had authorized Mr.
Fletcher to negotiate on this contract.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the last time this
contract came before the Board, there were questions about
the AIA contract. He, accordingly, scheduled a meeting to
go over this with Mr. Block and Administrator Greene. On
the day of the meeting, Mr. Greene was not present and it
just so happened that Commissioner Fletcher was present; he,
t
therefore, invited Mr. Fletcher to attend the meeting with
Mr. Block. Attorney Brandenburg commented that they did
come up with a scope of employment and he was'to reduce this
to writing but some time lapsed where he had not completed
this. He contacted Mr. Block before he wrote the subject
letter, indicating that the scope of work would be ready
shortly, but Mr. Block indicated that he was not interested
any further for a variety of reasons. Attorney Brandenburg,
therefore, suggested that the Board contact priority number
two on the list of architects previously recommended.
On Potion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
administrative staff and Attorney to negotiate with the
second choice for architect for the fourth Courtroom, John
W. Calmes, Architect.
LETTER FROM JUDGE SMITH RE COURTHOUSE PROBLEMS
The Board discussed the following letter addressed to
Dr. Hardin by Judge Charles Smith and commented on the
conflicts there seem to be in comparing Dr. Hardin's letter
stating what he has done and the Judge's statements re the
same:
MAY 26 1982
�BQK, 49. %E846:
39
MAY 2 6 1982
Aute of gpw ax
CHARLES E. SMITH
CIRCUIT JUDGE
May -19, 1982
Dr. C. B. Hardin, Jr.
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
,IN.
a.
BAOK �� P�EC7
In re: Indian River County Courthouse ,
Dear Dr. Hardin:
224 COUNTY COURTHOUSE
VERWOZACH. FLA. 32960
PHONES (305) 862.7871
In regard to your letter to me which was dated April 28, 1982,
but was not received by -me until May,B% 1982 and was postmarked
March 29, 1982, I want to make the following comments and responses.
As to the health problems experienced by the judges and judicial
assistants, you stated that none of the specialists have been
able to tell us what has been causing our problems. This is not
accurate. Dr. Jackson previously had testified before you and the
County Commissioners that the problems experienced by Judge
Stikelether, his judicial assistant and my former judicial assistant
were directly related to the courthouse enviroment. Dr. Jackson
could not identify the specific item that was causing the problem.
Judges Vocelle, Lewis and myself have been to different ophthalmolo-
gists and have all been diagnosed as having the same type of eve
problem, caused by an irritant. As we have explained before, this
problem 6nly occurs when in the Indian River County Courthouse and
no where else. Common sense, then, indicates that the problem has
to be something in the courthouse.
In regard to our repeated requests for tests for formaldehyde in the
vault room and our offices, the last test, I believe, was made some
time in July, 1981. The reasons for the continued tests and
periodical tests is to determine if the formaldehyde levels are
decreasing in the vault room from the previous test results. If the
tests in the vault room show that formaldehyde levels are continuing to
decrease, then removing the shelving would not be required. However,
if the formaldehyde levels are not decreasing, this would indicate that
the shelving is still producing formaldehyde and therefore the shelving
would haue to be removed and replaced with another type of material.
ine reason for testing our offices is to determine the level of
formaldehyde, if any, to determine if formaldehyde gas is still a
problem and if not, then this would indicate a solvent or unknown gas
is continuing to cause the eye irritation and headaches and further
tests for other gases and toxic materials should be made.
I am greatly concerned that you have `informed me that the, reason
for delay in obtaining the additional tests was because your request
for assistance was sent to the insurance carrier, who turned you
down. I hope that you realize that there may be a conflict between
your insurance carrier and county commissioners and the occupants
of the courthouse, since on the one hand the insurance carrier does
not want to pay amounts under the liability or Workmen's compensation
Policies, while on the other hand, the county commissioners should
r
be trying to determine the problem and eliminate it. You had
previously informed me that the insurance carrier suggested that
two so-called experts from the University of South Florida, 'as a
team be called in, but it was evident from their references that
they were totally unqualified to make this study. This indicates
again that the insurance carrier has not tried to find the source
of the problem and eliminate it, but `I s only seeking tol-avoid
liability and bury the problem., The County Commissioners are going
to have to take the position that the safety and welfare of the
occupants of the courthouse comes first over the wishes or desires
of the insurance carrier and if a conflict has arisen, the County
Commissioners should be honest enough- to recognize this and*turn
over their responsibility for the maintenance and safekeeping of the
courthouse to a third party. There is just no real excuse or valid
reason why the delay for this testing has occurred.
In regard to the pigeons, this problem was called to the attention of
the County Administrator by written Memorandum, personally delivered
to him on September 11, 1981. It was my -understanding, from you, that
you were trying to eliminate or solve this problem since you advised me
that you had written the Humane Society. In fact, you also wrote the
Fresh Water & Game Commission a letter of April 5, 1982. If you never
intended to do anything about the pigeons, why did you write the
Humane Society and Game Commission? There is enclosed a copy of a letter
from.Dr. Jeff Slade, D.V.M. in which he suggested that there have been
devices that scare pigeons away. Also I received a call from a party
that suggested wooden owls installed on the roof keep pigeons away.
I am not saying that there is a present problem with the pigeons, but
this request to scare or kill the pigeons from the fresh -air intake
on the air-conditioning units on the roof, was for preventive measures
to prevent any future problems and as an extra precaution against the
pigeonsgetting into the fresh -air vents again. Nearly any time you go
by the courthouse, you can see pi;§eons on the roof or flying around
the roof, so I know that we still have pigeons and since the pigeons
have gotten into the air-conditioning vents before, I still think there
is a good chance that they will do so again, although it may be
several years down the road.
As to the carpeting, the attorney for Focus Carpet Corporation
advises in his letter of March 24, 1982, to Gary M. Brandenberg, and I
quote: " We are advised by the Company that no formaldehyde has been used
in carpet manufacturing.for approximately ten years.. Additionally,
the company has requested each of its suppliers to verify that they do
not use formaldehyde in the products sold to.the Company for use in manu-
facturing carpet." Now the same attorney for Focus Carpet Company, by
letter to Brandenberg of April 30, 1982, sent us tests of the carpeting
results which show that there are 47ppm free formaldehyde, but that.the
formaldehyde is non-detectable with nose or sense of smell. These
test results thep, show conclusively that there is -formaldehyde in this
carpet, contrary to what they previously stated on Mar ch 24, 1982. We
do not know , or at least I have never been informed about the glue
other than some technical terms and I don't know what they mean. Since
the carpeting dogs contain formaldehyde we are again requesting that all
the carpeting and the glue be.removed from the entire courthouse and
that suitable nop-allergenic carpeting, with po glue, be installgd.
.As far as the halls are concerned, we don't care if it is carpeting
or some cheaper product.
In regard to the completion date of the large courtroom and your advise-
ment to us as to estimated completion time-, you still have not given.
us any time in your reply. The importance of having a courtroom large
enough for a twelve -person jury cannot be over emphasized since it is
mandatory in capitol cases and condemnation cases. All of the judges
work on schedules_ prepared months ahead and it would greatly help us
if we could have some estimated date of completion.
' ` 88fJK
MAY 2 6 198241
MAY 2 6 19 = ,} �r
The air-conditioning noise problem over Judge Vocelle's judicial
assistant still has not been fixed or remedied in any manner and I don't
believe anyone has attempted to fix it. The last that I heard was that
the architects by their letter of March 10, 1982 claims that they did
not design this air-conditioning system for the judges offices and in
fact informed the county that it was not being designed or installed
properly. After that we have heard nothing and I reali4ze that the county
is blaming the architect and builder and the architect is blaming the
county for this problem, but it has to be solved so that the judicial
assistants can work with the air-conditioning on. The noise mainly
bothers one judicial assistant, but after all day, it bothers all of
them and there is no place.for them to move. We are again asking the
county to fix this immediately and keep us informed of the progress.
Speaking of air-conditioning problems, you were going to get a written
report from Mr. Kashmfry as to his recommendations as to the entire
air-conditioning system for all three courtrooms and our offices. We
still have not gotten his written report, -although it has been months
since he was hired. Would you please have him complete his written
report and send us a copy as soon as possible.
In your letter to me of April 28, 1982, you indicated that you would
keep me updated not less than once.each week until we resolve all our
problems. However, I have not -received any communication from you
as to the progress since then except for some copies of letters.- At
the very least, we would request that you follow up with a Memorandum
as to the progress of each item and the estimated date of completion.
We will be glad to direct our questions in writing, which generally
we have been doing and you say that the staff has been instructed to
respond immediately, but at.the'same time we request that you keep
us informed by writing or even verbally, since I have not heard from
you even verbally since April 28, 1982. However, I think that you
and the staff and the County Commissioners should realize that it is
the judges responsibility and duty to'keep the court system functioning
expeditiously and as to matters that should be handled immediately,
we are going to telephone you and require prompt immediate
cooperation so that it wil'1 not interfere with the court's business.
If this is not done this could possibly subject you or the staff 6r2
anyone else to criminal or civil contempt of court.
The County Commissioners are legally responsible for the proper
maintenance of the courthouse and to keep it a safe -and healthy place
to work. They should set the highest standards for clean and healthy
air, both indoors and outdoors. These problems continue to exist and
must be eliminated as soon as possible.
Yours my ,
v
Charle E. Smit
4::1e
Commissioner Lyons was bothered by a statement in Judge
Smith's letter which he felt seemed to qualify Dr. Jackson
as an expert in this field.. He had no doubt about Dr..
Jackson's competency as a physician, but raised a question
as to whether Dr. Jackson can qualify as an expert in this
very specialized field.
ir
Dr. Hardin believed that perhaps some of the
interpretation the Judge has put on his letter is just a
matter of verbalism rather than anything else. He continued
that he wrote Judge Smith,"As to the health problem
experienced by the Judges and your assistants, we are deeply
.concerned about the health of all of you as well as those
citizens and employees who have suffered no ill effects to
date. We have had every conceivable test recommended or
suggested to us made to determine what could be causing this
problem. We are aware of the fact that you have had your
own personal physician, ophthalmologist and pulmonary
specialist involved, and as we understand it, none of these
specialists have been able to tell you what is causing your
problem." Judge Smith in his letter states, "...you have
stated that none of the specialists have been able to tell
us what is causing our problem, and this is not correct."
Dr. Hardin did not know how much more correct he could be.
As to the problem of the pigeons, this was a decision
by the Board of County Commissioners. Dr. Hardin reported
that they searched this out as far as they could, and found
that, according to the people contacted, there is no problem
with pigeons at the Courthouse. He'felt the Judge is using
a hypothetical "down the road" situation.
Dr. Hardin informed the Board that he has requested the
DHRS to come over and make more tests, but it seems that
everybody now is in a position where they don't want to.do
it. He noted that there was one outside firm that wanted
$1,800, plus expenses, for a two day visit to do this. Dr.
Hardin reported that the formaldehyde tests made in
September"of 1981 showed .226 parts per million in the vault
area and less than .01 parts per million in Judge Smith's
area.
MAY 2 6 1982 9 p�sF
43 .
$0
been made in the Judge's car or his house or other
courthouses where he works, and Dr. Hardin did not know of
any.
Commissioner Fletcher discussed the air conditioning in
the Judge's area, noting that the return air back to the
central unit does not go into a direct duct but flows
between the ceiling and the suspended roof structure.
Maintenance Supervisor Lynn Williams confirmed that is
true. He noted that the same system is used for the entire
first floor of the County Administration Building also, and
we have experienced no problems with it.
In further discussion, it was noted that DHRS will come
back and make more tests for formaldehyde if we insist.
Commissioner Bird felt we should insist.
Dr. Hardin reported that they are looking into some
type of tab that can be worn on a lapel to indicate the
level of formaldehyde in a particular area.
Some discussion followed as to the threatening tone of
Judge Smith's letter.
Maintenance Supervisor Williams reported that the
non -allergenic carpet has been installed in Judge
Stikelether's office in the Welfare Building for two weeks,
but they have had no comment from the Judge as yet. He
stated that he wrote the Judge on Monday requesting a reply.
Mr. Williams commented that Judge Stikelether has been
experiencing a problem in City Hall also.
Commissioner Bird felt it is important that Dr. Hardin
reply to Judge Smith's letter, and Dr. Hardin stated that he
has not answered it because he wanted to discuss it with the
Commissioners first.
Discussion ensued about any pigeon problem, and Mr.
Williams agreed that there was a previous problem about
pigeons being in the old system.
The ductwork was analyzed
and cleaned, the ducts were secured, and there is no problem
now regarding access to the ducts. Mr. Williams further
reported that they have installed ultra violet lights in the
returns to the courtrooms, plus dual filtration charcoal
filters which are changed regularly. In addition, Ecolo-
gizers, which are advertised to remove formaldehyde from the
air, have been purchased at a cost of $25.00 apiece.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons to install
scarecrows on the Courthouse roof as requested by the Judge
to keep the pigeons off. Motion died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Lyons stated the reason he brought this
subject up today was that it seems we are getting to the
point of pitting one expert against another and maybe we
ought to find out who our expert is going to be.
Dr. Hardin stated that he will now answer Judge Smith's
letter, and Commissioner Bird suggested that they contact
Judge Stikelether by telephone and inquire about his
response to the recently installed rug.
DISCUSSION ON CONSEQUENCES OF REAPPORTIONMENT
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that it appears
that the Reapportionment of Districts recently approved by
the State Legislature apparently does not agree with our
precinct lines, and if we go along with this, it seems that
it may cost the County between $8,000 and $9,000 to redo the
voting precincts. He wished to know if there is some action
the County can take in this regard, possibly joining in any
lawsuit that may be instituted.
In further discussion, it was agreed that the Attorney
should check into this and report back.
The Board thereupon recessed for lunch at 12:40 o'clock
P.M. and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock P.M., all members being
,
Orr -
.MAY 2.6
present,with the exception of Commissioner Wodtke who was
unable to return due to a business appointment.
APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS.AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that the
4
anniversary date for the reappointments to the Parks and
Recreation Committee has come and gone and he would like to
recommend that the individuals named in the following memo
be reappointed for a term of one year.
TO: Dick Bird 4ff DATE: 5/11/82 FILE:
FROM: Alice White
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation
Committee Appointments
REFERENCES:
The following names have been submitted for appointment to the Parks
and Recreation Committee:
Board o_f County Commissioners
City of Vero Beach
City of Sebastian
North County Recreation Committee
Indian River County School Board
Town of Indian River Shores
City of Fellsmere
Gifford Representative
Vero Beach City Recreation Committee
Dick Bird (reappointment)
Terry Goff (reappointment)
George Schum
Everett Gass - Alternate
Rene Van de Voorde (reappointment)
Ken Evitt
Al MacAdam (reappointment)
Ersie Hall (reappointment)
The Gifford Progressive League
will hold their next meeting
June 1 - until that time,
Larry Staley will sit in on the
meetings
We have not had an answer from
them at this time
Commissioner Bird commented that in regard to an
appointment from the Vero Beach City Recreation Committee,
he understood from Terry Goff that it will be Gary Scheidt.
The Progressive League is going to name someone to replace
Larry Staley, but until they do, he will continue to serve.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, to reappoint to the Parks & Recreation
Committee those named in the above memo dated May 11, 1982.
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he had been
approached by people who wished to know how they could
become part of the North Indian River County Recreation
Committee,and he wished to know if this is a separate
organization or a County -formed board.
In discussion, it was noted that it started out as the
Wabasso Improvement Committee and now has evolved into North
Indian River County Recreation, Inc. Further discussion
ensued as to whether this possibly should become part of the
official County Recreation Committee.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried 4 to 0, Commissioner Wodtke being absent.
UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE
(A) Gifford Park Restroom
Commissioner Bird reported that they are in the process
of obtaining the building permit for construction of
restrooms at Gifford Park.
In regard to Larry Staley who supervises the recreation
activities at Gifford Park, Commissioner Bird reported that
the Progressive League has come up with $1,500 for their
share of the match for his salary. He continued that we did
not have Mr. Staley funded for the summer, and after
discussing this with the School -Board, that Board agreed
that Mr. Staley would be hired as an instructor under the
School's summer recreation program and continue his
activities at Gifford Park in cooperation with the summer
MAY2 6 19$2 -PAR $ 4
47
d . Y
MA
198Z
49
*F'855 .
recreation programs offered at Middle 6
and Middle
7
Schools. Commissioner Bird reported that it is planned to
ask for further donations of equipment for the Gifford Park.
(B) C-34 Airboat Launch
Commissioner Bird next reported that when Blue Cypress
Lake was closed for airboat launching, it was decided to
improve the ramp area at C-34 Canal for this purpose.
Through use of the County crew and some funds from the Board
Improvement Trust Fund, the shoulders on both sides of the
road have been improved to provide both a safe place to
f
launch and park.
(C) Round Island Park
Commissioner Bird noted that an agreement was worked
out with the University of Florida to have some Seniors
assist in developments plans for parks with the thought in
mind they would eventually make up a Master Plan for Parks &
Recreation Development in Indian River County. The first
year we got a commitment of one student, Kim Moyer, re
development of Round Island Park and agreed to expend
somewhere between $400 to $600 for expenses she might incur
in connection with this project. These funds were in the
Planning Budget. After a series of about four visits to the
County and a tremendous amount of research, Miss Moyer did a
very comprehensive study on the background of that area and
provided several conceptual plans which she drew up with
varying degrees of development, ranging from minimal to a
very complete development with camping area, picnic areas,
boating facilities, etc. The final expense was about $600
mostly for printing and travel. Commissioner Bird expressed
great pleasure with the final'iesult of Miss Moyer's study
and believed these plans will put us ahead of the game when
funds do become available in the future for development of
this park. He stated that with the Commission's approval,
he planned to write the School of Landscape Architecture
- rr
commending Miss Moyer for this work. He stated that he has
talked with the School about the possibility of getting
additional students in the future, and they are very recep-
tive to this idea.
Commissioner Lyons suggested that it might be even more
helpful if the Commission forwarded Resolutions to both the
School and the student, thanking the School for their
participation in supplying the student and thanking Miss
Moyer for her excellent cooperation and work.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Pletcher, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote,
Commissioner Wodtke being absent, authorized preparation of
two resolutions as described above.
Chairman Scurlock noted that there are a number of
programs at State Universities which require the student to
serve an internship, and he has been asked if the County
would be willing to make use of these services at no cost.
He has turned that information over to Dr. Hardin and
believe this could be a tremendous resource for the County.
(D) Blue Cypress Lake Park
Commissioner Bird reported that previously because of
the limited amount of space and the difficulty involved with
obtaining permits, Blue Cypress Lake Park.did not rank very
high in the committee's recommendation for expansion of
facilities. Lately, however, a petition signed by several
hundred residents has been received, requesting that the
Commission take steps to provide safe and adequate overnight
camping facilities at this park, and this has shed a new
light on the situation. Commissioner Bird continued that
last year"because of sub -standard restroom and water
facilities, we had to advise Park Supervisor Middleton to
prohibit overnight camping. This not only affected his
livelihood because he could no longer collect fees and
retain a portion of them, but it also caused him great
MAY 2 6 19Q�: 49 Alf85
for many years were adamant about their right to camp there.
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that he has contacted
the Health Department to assist us with a plan to bring the
restroom and water facilities up to standard, and when this
is received, he will bring it to the Board's attention to
see whether we want to get into the expense involved.
(E) Tracking Station Park
Commissioner Bird reported that we did receive approval
from the State for additional grant funds to develop the
•
Tracking Station Park. We had a plan which was pretty well
agreed upon by the residents in the area and the Committee
and that was submitted to the State. Before we proceed with
final construction drawings and permits, however, Commis-
sioner Bird stated that he would like to invite the
residents of the area to meet with the Committee one more
time to review the plan and make final suggestions for minor
changes.
Chairman Scurlock commented that he had been informed
that the actual depiction of this Plan in the Planning
Department did not contain the notations which are in the
final agreement.
(F) Property for Golf Course
Commissioner Bird next informed the Board that he had
received an inquiry from Tom McPherson, on behalf of the
City of Vero Beach, in regard to any parcel of County -owned
land that would be large enough to accommodate a golf
course. He noted that the County only owns two parcels
which are over 100 acres in size - one at Kiwanis-Hobart
Park and the other at the Sanitary Landfill operation, which
would not apply, and this was reported to Mr- McPherson.
Commissioner Bird commented that he is still looking into
the feasibility of a public golf course to be built at
Hobart Park and felt that he is on the track of something
interesting and feasible.
Commissioner Fletcher felt the Board is very fortunate
to have Commissioner Bird doing such an outstanding job in
the area of Parks and Recreation, and the Board agreed.
DISCUSSION RE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE NORTH COUNTY
FIRE DISTRICT RE $1.00 PER RUN
Commissioner Fletcher commented that Motion was made by
the Board at the last meeting that he contact the North
County Fire District and advise them to handle the suggested
fee for the volunteers of $1.00 per run in a manner
consistent with the majority of the departments in the
District. He reported that he has had meetings with them
since, and they are contending that the District was created
so that each individual department could handle their own
destiny. Commissioner Fletcher appreciated the Commission's
desire for consistency and also the concern that the $1.00
per run might turn into something more. He also had this
concern, but noted that the Advisory Board members have
speculated that this will be a bigger bookkeeping problem
than it is worth. He asked if the Commission wished him to
make the recommendation re consistency in handling the fees
a formal recommendation.
In discussion, it was felt that the,Commission mainly
wanted to be sure the volunteers in the North County were protected
as to Workmens and Unemployment Campensation and also did not want
one segment underwriting another in this connection. This
was merely a recommendation by the Commission, and the
District can decide whether or not they want to accept it.
Commissioner Bird asked whether the question of
consistency related to whether or not the individual would
receive the dollars or whether it would be paid on his
behalf to that particular fire fighting entity.
MAY 261982 51
Fr-
- MAY 26 1982
Finance Director Barton explained that he would just
turn the dollar per man over to the fire fighting entity,
and what they do with,it is their concern. It is their
responsibility to make the checks to the individuals.
He believed from the standpoint of obtaining the
Unemployment Compensation coverage, it is worth the bother
with the bookkeeping.
In further discussion, it was the consensus that the
Commission merely wished to encourage the North County Fire
District°to be consistent in their handling of these fees.
Chairman Scurlock commented that when the North and
South County Fire Districts were formed, both Districts
expressed a desire to have an Advisory Committee. These
Advisory Committees were formed, and while we give heavy
weight to their recommendations to the District Board, the
Chairman did not want any misconception about the fact that
the final decision rests with this Commission which is
acting as the District Board.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that Finance Director
Barton has stated that he is holding up the funds until the
Advisory Board sends back a message.
Finance Director Barton asked if he should just go
ahead and send the checks to the individual departments, and
the Board felt that is what he should do, accompanied by a
comment that it would be appreciated if these funds could be
handled in a consistent manner.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at
2:17 o'clock P.M.
Attest:
r '
Clerk
Chairman