Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/5/1993M MINUTLSATTACI-IEIr BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING - VERO BEACH CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1993 3:00 P.M. - FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5) John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 4) Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) Kenneth R. Macht ( Dist. 3 ) 'CITY COUNCIL Jay Smith, Mayor Caroline Ginn Jack Crossett William Jordan Carl Pease James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board Tom Nason, Acting City Manager Larry Braisted, City Attorney Phyllis Neuberger, City Clerk Board of County Commissioners Items for Discussion: 1. Request for Overview of Proposed Sludge Treatment Facility 2. Discussion of Small Business Occupational License Requirements 3. Recreation Consolidation - Status Report ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY ITEM 4. New Horizons Mobile Home Park Water Supply Vero Beach City Council Items for Discussion: 1. Discussion of Beach Management Including Dewatering Project and Artificial Reef 2. Riverside Theater and Center for the Arts Property Maintenance ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. MAY - 5 1993 BOOK 89 wu, x4 7 SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, May 5, 1993 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida met in Joint Special Session with the Vero Beach City Council in the First Floor Conference Room of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, at 3:00 P. M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. Present from the Vero Beach City Council were Jay Smith, Mayor; Caroline Ginn; Jack Grossett; William Jordan. Absent was Carl Pease because of illness in his family. Also present were Tom Nason, Acting City Manager; Larry Braisted, City Attorney; and Phyllis Neuberger, City Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Mayor Smith reminded the City Council members that since this is a workshop, the Council will not take any formal action. NEW HORIZONS MOBILE HOME PARK Chairman Bird advised that Commissioner Adams requested the addition of an emergency item regarding New Horizons Mobile Home Park, which will be discussed first. Commissioner Adams explained that the water tank in New Horizons Mobile Home Park, located in the north county, blew up on Sunday. The residents have been without potable water since Sunday and it constitutes a health hazard. The County does not have a franchise agreement with that park and the mobile home park has been before code enforcement for years. The park does not have a responsible owner and the property is in foreclosure. Commissioner Adams advised that staff has put together all the necessary papers and through the FDIC we have been given permission to go onto the property and do whatever is necessary to solve this problem. The estimated cost is $10,000. We can put a lien on the property and settle with the new owner after the foreclosure procedure. MAY -5 1 eooK 89 i-njF. 441 BOOK 89 RkU 449 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht to go forward and do whatever is necessary to solve the water problem at New Horizons Mobile Home Park. Under discussion, Commissioner Macht asked about the cost. Utility Services Director Terry Pinto estimated that it would take $10,000 to get water into the system. However, there are problems with the internal plumbing of the mobile home park that must be repaired to overcome the leaks and we can not really define where those leaks are until we get water into the system. Director Pinto estimated the cost to solve internal leaks would be an additional $20,000, or less. Chairman Bird asked whether we will be able to recover whatever amount we expend. County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that we will put a mechanic's lien on the property, which has priority, and we hope to get the money back. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY Administrator Chandler recounted that this item was placed on the agenda to hear the City's plans for handling their sludge output. Acting City Manager Nason reported that after several years of research, the City's consultant, Boyle Engineering, determined that the best method of handling sludge is with the sludge drying system. This system uses infrared ovens and scrubbers and results in a product that meets all the requirements which have to be met by 1995. Mr. Nason displayed a plastic bag which contained the end product, and he characterized it as pure. He stated that he visited an installation of the operation and it appears to be a viable alternative. The decision has not been made and they still have a request for proposals out to see if there is an alternative method which may be cheaper per ton of resulting material. He reported that they have about 1300 tons of sludge emanating from the treatment plant each year. The new system could be in place to meet the March 1995 deadline. He felt that the concern of odor control is covered by what is called a smog hog. He stated that he odor is unique, it is nothing like sludge, and in fact is similar to the smell of roasting coffee. 2 Mr. Nason assured those in attendance that the City's present treatment system is an open system and there is no problem with odor. The proposed system is enclosed. Additionally, they can use the City's power system as an interruptible customer which means they would not be contributing to the peak power time which will also cut costs. Chairman Bird asked whether the City is considering using the County's sludge treatment system or if the decision has been made to go on their own. Acting City Manager Nason reported that based on their calculations, which did not include the capital expense at the County's facility, the City's own facility would cost less because the biggest cost is transporting the sludge to the County facility. On some days the City issues 10 to 20 trucks, which would require an extended operation of the County's facility. With a City -owned facility, the operation could be handled right on the premises and they would have a product which may have a value of between $5 and $10 a ton from the commercial fertilizer industry. Mr. Nason felt that is the direction the City is headed, but they have not closed the door to alternatives. County Administrator Chandler clarified that the numbers which were provided to the City were for an interim operation and did not include the capital expense because of the County ordinance which prohibits disposal of septage or sludge in the unincorporated areas except at the County's facility. He explained that a copy of the ordinance was provided to Mr. Nason to use in his analysis and we are waiting for a response regarding the interim plan. Chairman Bird summarized that County staff and City staff are in communication to assure that the decision is made on current information. Mayor Smith confirmed that there has not been a final decision and the request for proposals is due back on May 11. DISCUSSION OF SMALL BUSINESS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE R9QUIREMENTS Administrator Chandler explained that this issue was recently addressed by the Economic Development Committee because of a concern of small businesses regarding the fact that they must pay for occupational licenses in both the city and the county. Administrator Chandler advised that there has been a recent change in state law regarding distribution of the fees which are collected by the County for occupational licenses. The new law states that fees that are collected in the unincorporated area would remain within the county and would not be distributed on a pro rata 3 MAY ® 5 1993 BOOK 89 fln, 450 BOOK 89 P'.Gr -7 �51 population basis. The new law further requires that a committee be established to review the rate structure and establish how the balance of the fees would be distributed. Commissioner Eggert related that questions have been raised over and over again at the Economic Development Council meetings regarding why we must have separate license fees in the city and in the county, and why it cannot be collected in one place and distributed properly according to a set formula. Commissioner Eggert stated that the County is trying to set up a system to inform a business person that the occupational license fee is a tax and if you are involved in business there are other requirements. She hoped municipalities could join the County in this endeavor. Commissioner Eggert directed the Board's and Council's attention to a copy of the proposed new law which states that an Equity Study Committee should be formed to recommend a classification system and rate structure. She suggested that the committee be composed of the staffs of the municipalities to recommend whether we could have a county -wide fee and have it properly distributed. Acting City Manager Nason distributed a sheet showing the amounts of occupational fees collected by the City and the County in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. He agreed that the occupational license fee is a tax, and the City makes it very clear it is a tax and not a regulatory procedure. He also agreed that a joint committee is a good idea. Mayor Smith felt that the information regarding the proposed law is too new and urged the City Council to allow the staff digest it and present it to Council for discussion. Then the City will send a formal answer to the County. Vero Beach Planning Director Dennis Ragsdale advised that they do check on applications before they issue an occupational license. If we go to a joint system, he requested that the County do its own check on applicants because there have been cases where the County issued an occupational license to someone who improperly opened a business. The City staff read about it in the newspaper and realized that the business did not comply with zoning, but the business was established and operating, and the City had to kick them out. These people assumed that they received a license to go into business. Commissioner Eggert hoped the computers can speak to each other and correct that type of thing. In the meantime, the big concern is multiple payments for occupational licenses. Mayor Smith directed staff to review and be prepared to advise the City Council on what effect a joint occupational license will have on the revenue stream. 4 0 Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the need for multiple occupational licenses where a business has more than one location. Administrator Chandler confirmed that a change of address must be reported to the County because of the potential problem that Director Ragsdale mentioned. He concurred with Commissioner Eggert's concern that this is a tax and does not give you the right to open the door. You have to meet all the requirements. A person cannot do business in an area that is not zoned for it. Commissioner Eggert felt there is a need for clarification on the rules. Chairman Bird asked whether there is cross referencing between the County's planning department and the Tax Collector's office. Administrator Chandler stated that we are trying to nail that down because there has been a degree of confusion on the part of individuals when they pay their fee and pick up their license that they automatically can go into business, and that's not the case. Councilman Jordan asked if a person has a City license and wants to open several locations in the county, does he need a license for each location. Director Ragsdale advised that in the City you would have a separate license for each location. County Attorney Vitunac thought that we are taxing the right to do business at a location, and if they have two locations, the County can probably tax twice, but does not have to, and that is one of the things that the equity study group would decide. It is clear that having one office in the city also requires a county license because, of course, the city is in the county, but the reverse is not true. Chairman Bird summarized that staff will study that and see what the effect of the new law could be and try to clarify that matter. RECREATION CONSOLIDATION - STATUS REPORT Administrator Chandler stated that he and Acting City Manager Nason agreed there was a need for a joint presentation of the status of the recreation consolidation. He recounted that at the Board's request in August a committee was established comprised of the city managers, the Mayor of Fellsmere and the County Administrator to address the question of recreation consolidation and to bring back a recommendation to all the respective bodies. The committee met weekly and considered a full range of alternatives related to recreation consolidation, from total consolidation to completely abandoning the informal agreements and 5 MAY - 5 1993 800K 89 FADE 452 MAY ® 5 1 q q r eooK 89 FAcC 453 going our separate ways, although the members of the committee believe that is not a viable alternative and would be a step back from where we are presently. The recommendations include short range action and things that will impact us all in the next fiscal year, as well as other objectives and, their respective time frames. There is one area in which every member of the committee is in agreement and that is that it would be to the benefit of the cities and county and all residents if we were able to achieve consolidation of staffs as an initial step in the process. If we accomplish that, the most equitable procedure would be to distribute the expenses and fees on a population basis. Administrator Chandler further explained that the committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, at which time they will refine the figures and costs involved with consolidating the employees, and Acting City Manager Nason will report on the impact to the City's budget and their general fund. The County must address the question of pensions and giving the city employees the option of becoming county employees and what that cost would be to the County versus what dollars will come from the City. Administrator Chandler pointed out that one of the mandates to the committee was to arrive at a recommendation in advance of the budget and they realize they are up against the wall. Acting City Manager Nason confirmed that this would be a very thin transfer, strictly people. The operating budget, which includes everything from paper clips to the travel budget, would remain with the City until the numbers could be reconciled. It is almost at a break even point and there are a few more points that need work before the committee can come up with an answer. The committee is composed of a wide span of people and interests and it is a very, very difficult task. Administrator Chandler emphasized that if the consolidation of staffs is achieved, it would not resolve all the problems that have developed over the years in recreation services. The committee's recommendation carries with it the additional comment that there are still issues which need to be addressed and need to be resolved on some sort of time frame. The consolidation of staffs would not be a total transfer of program costs from the City to the County. Chairman Bird was encouraged and realized it was not an easy assignment. He believed that the committee's efforts are well - guided and heading in the right direction. Whether you are a city resident or a county resident, recreation opportunities are better than they have ever been. People in the county agree we should try to find ways to consolidate and eliminate duplication of staff and effort. If we are all patient we will continue to make progress. 0 Councilman Jordan asked whether the committee anticipates any reduction of recreation staff. Administrator Chandler responded in the negative and explained that at this point the committee is looking to refine costs and study the gross numbers to see what might fit or be manageable. The committee then will spend more time refining those numbers. Acting City Manager Nason agreed. He stated that it is obvious we cannot do the whole thing at one time and that the consolidation should be undertaken in phases. The next difficult task is keeping the facilities up and maintaining the quality of recreation we have now. Councilman Jordan clarified that if we are not reducing staff then apparently there is no duplication. Commissioner Eggert stated that she has heard the question, if there is no duplication, what is the point of consolidation. Administrator Chandler explained that the City and the County have been cooperating under an informal agreement. The Director of Recreation has had two bosses, the City and the County. The manpower has been run efficiently. Consolidation is a matter of putting the formal touches to what we have been doing and will continue to do, but there is a great deal of potential for duplication if the informal agreement does not work and we go our separate ways. Commissioner Eggert thought that important point should be stressed. Commissioner Macht explained that 8 years ago when he was elected to the City Council there was a full blown discussion of consolidation of the recreation services and it was based on the City"s desire to develop some equity in the costs. The city taxpayers felt they were underwriting the recreational needs of the entire county unfairly, and that was what gave impetus to the desire, mostly on the part of the city, to effect this union or at least to develop some equity in the recompense. This issue has been discussed during at least two joint meetings. Equity is the driving force, not duplication or dissatisfaction with the level of service. Mayor Smith reported that the City's 5 -year plan for recreation was discussed at budget time last year and it appeared that the City can no longer afford to carry recreation. For years the City has been underpaid from the fees and actually was providing recreational services for 70 percent of participants who did nqt live in the city of Vero Beach. He thought phasing into the consolidation was appropriate because it worked with the building department and it worked with the fire department. 7 BOOK S9 FGF 45 MAY ® 5 1993 BOOK 89 FAGF 455 Administrator Chandler agreed that in terms of county allocation there is a need to clarify and formalize the recreation department. The Board and Council agreed that everyone wishes to provide uniform opportunity to engage in recreation throughout the county and it should not be tilted in one or another. Councilwoman Ginn asked whether the committee examined the possibility of a dependent taxing district. Commissioner Macht thought that an independent taxing district would give the taxpayers of the county and the cities an opportunity to say how much they are willing to pay for recreational services and what kind of services they want. Chairman Bird recounted discussions a few years ago where the final recommendation was that if you are looking at what is best to unify and equalize recreation throughout the county, a countywide independent taxing district would be best, set up with its own separate board to govern it. But the consensus, at least among the committee then, was that they did not think that would be approved by the voters and taxpayers of Indian River County. At best it would have to be a dependent taxing district. Councilwoman Ginn stressed that she was not suggesting an independent district. County Attorney Vitunac recounted that when that issue came up previously, the opinion of the County's legal office was that independent taxing districts were not authorized by law for recreation districts; they are not legal. DISCUSSION OF BEACH MANAGEMENT INCLUDING DEWATERING PROJECT AND ARTIFICIAL REEF Mayor Smith requested an update from the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee Commissioner Adams reported that the committee staff liaison is Public Works Director Jim Davis and the County has applied for federal funds for beach erosion control. The committee has several options, including PEP reefs and sand pumping, but no decision has been made. The application for federal funds was submitted because there is a deadline. The committee will receive a presentation from Conserve Our Resources (COR) on Monday. Mayor Smith asked specifically about the City's request for the dewatering system and understood that the County has no interest in pursuing that project. Commissioner Adams stated that the City's request for funding for the dewatering project will be presented to the Tourist 8 Development Council in a couple of weeks. The Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee was asked their opinion on the dewatering project, but that Committee is in the process of trying to get a total county beach management plan and are not in a position to authorize any particular project. They especially would not support any little project that was not coordinated with the total management plan. The request for dewatering was for $200,000 and the Tourist Development Council has less than $500,000 to work with, so we cannot use it all towards just the beach dewatering project. The Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee is not opposed to beach dewatering. It is something that we need to continue to investigate and must be part of the total project. Commissioner Tippin related that as Chairman of the Tourist Development Council he sent a memo to the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee asking for their comment regarding the City's request for funding the dewatering project. Mayor Smith clarified that the City's request to the Tourist Development Council was under the condition that the City would fund the money and the Tourist Development Council would pay it back over a period of two or three years. Councilman Jordan asked whether the state and federal agencies were insisting that they would not fund a multi-purpose grant, and Commissioner Adams confirmed that was correct. Mayor Smith stated that Resolution 87-133 gave the sponsorship of the beach nourishment project to the City of Vero Beach, and that resolution has not been revoked. Mayor Smith recalled that when a now -disbanded committee decided that we should pursue the dewatering project, it was decided that a small project would be inconclusive and it should be expanded to 1,000 feet. This system has not been proved or disproved anyplace, but he thought it was worth the investment to see if it will work. If it does not work, we will have removed one fly from the ointment. Additionally, the City will provide the necessary electrical power and monitor the project. Chairman Bird asked for clarification on the status of the City's request for $200,000 from the Tourist Development Council. Administrator Chandler reported that all the requests for the fiscal year 1993-94 Tourist- Development Council funds will be addressed at their May 19 meeting. Their recommendation will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners which has the authority over disbursement of funds. John J. Morrison, a member of the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, commented that he has worked on beach V� � rr BOOK 89 u,U 456 FF" -MAY - 5 1993 BOOK 89 FADE 457 management and restoration over the years. He pointed out that a very thorough and sophisticated survey showed that there could not be a single treatment running along the entire beach because we have a multiplicity of situations to deal with. He knew that Commissioner Adams is aware of that and wanted to make that point. He also felt he was knowledgeable regarding the Tourist Development council requirements for requests for funding and recalled that after much discussion the committee decided on certain criteria. The primary criterion used in the evaluation of proposals is that the project must be devised clearly to attract vacationers to this area, which means you don't pay to sweep the streets, you don't clean the beach, you attract people here. The committee developed a very sophisticated approach to evaluate requests. He recalled that some projects were questionable in regard to attracting vacationers, but because of pressure from residents, those projects were funded. He was confident that by following the criteria we will attract tourists on a cost-effective basis. Commissioner Adams stressed that the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee is being careful to coordinate all projects and not step on toes in recommending projects. She stated that the committee's intention is to move forward step by step and not repeat all the studies. If there are problems, they will be discussed openly. If the City wants the resolution revoked, that should be discussed. Commissioner Adams offered to have more face to face discussions with the City Council, and the City Council members agreed that was a good idea. Mayor Smith interpreted that the resolution could be rescinded by the County at any time, and the County simply gave the ball to the City to carry for a while. He felt it was fairer for the County to have sponsorship for beach nourishment particularly because the City Council represents only 17,500 citizens while the County has 80,000 to 901000 residents. Mayor Smith thought that since the resolution has no time frame, the County has the power to take back sponsorship of beach management. He also explained that the City is negotiating with Department of Transportation (DOT) for a rubble near -shore reef using the old Barber Bridge, and they want to be sure that project will not interfere with any other plans. Mayor Smith explained that if the cost of disposing of the bridge is the same as the cost of barging it out and creating the reef, DOT will be happy to do so. If the cost is higher, and depending upon how much more it would cost to do that, the City will consider funding it, because this near shore reef would probably help erosion control and it would be a fish habitat. 10 Commissioner Adams saw the reef as a complement to other projects. She did not think dewatering interferes with anything, but it does not fit in at this particular point in time. Mayor Smith commented that with that knowledge the City staff will develop an alternate list of tourist related funding requests for District 1. Councilman Jordan asked about the Resolution 87-133, and Commissioner Macht stated that the Board does not want to revoke it unilaterally; we want to do it by agreement. County Attorney Vitunac stated that he has always advised the Board that they can unilaterally revoke that resolution and take back the sponsorship of beach management. Chairman Bird directed staff to dig out the resolution and place it on the agenda for discussion at the next County Commission meeting. Chairman Bird thought that the dewatering project will be considered by the Tourist Development Council and the criteria will be applied. The Council will make a recommendation to the Board, and the Board will make a decision, but at this point he wanted to be sure that the dewatering project does not interfere with the application for federal funding and the overall beach management plan as set up by the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee. Commissioner Adams responded that the one project does not interfere with the overall plan because every piece of the beach is different. Councilman Grossett stated that under federal regulations, the Army Corps of Engineers will not accept or fund a project for beach dewatering because it is not a recognized beach erosion control system. Chairman Bird stated that before we agree to fund the dewatering project 'he would like to be sure that it does not jeopardize the application for federal and state funds. Commissioner Macht thought that if we want to do the beach dewatering project, we should do it and find out if it works. He also did not agree with Mr. Morrison about the use of the funds from tourist taxes because the statute allows beach improvement, renourishment, restoration and erosion control including shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration. He felt that the dewatering project is an authorized use of tourist tax revenues. Commissioner Eggert explained that the Tourist Development Council developed criteria at a workshop and a decision was made that we would concentrate on advertising and things of that nature. She thought it was a good idea for the City to present an alternate 11 MAY ® 5 1993 BOOK 89 J MAY - 5 1993 BOOK 89 FAcr 4.59-1 list of uses for the District 1 funds in case the Tourist Development Council did not approve the dewatering project. Councilman Jordan asked for a decision on Resolution 87-133, and Chairman Bird stated that it would be addressed at the next County Commission meeting. RIVERSIDE THEATER AND CENTER FOR THE ARTS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Commissioner Eggert announced that because she is chairman of the Center for the Arts she was concerned about the possibility of a conflict of interest. The County Attorney advised that because there is no financial gain to the position of chairman of that group there is no conflict of interest. Mayor Smith led the discussion regarding the free landscape maintenance and lawn cutting services which the City has provided for several years. A year ago the City notified Riverside Theater and Center for the Arts that those services will be discontinued and those two groups indicated they would approach the Board for help in funding that landscape maintenance. The City will continue with the maintenance through the end of the fiscal year. Discussion ensued regarding what maintenance the City has provided and what they will continue to provide. Vero Beach Operations Supervisor of Public Works Bill Stay advised that they will continue to maintain the lawn where they use the huge mower. They will discontinue maintenance in the area between Riverside Drive, Armstrong Drive and its curve down to Dahlia Lane. Mayor Smith further commented that the City is still offering to do the irrigation with the reuse water system that is being converted. They currently are using potable water. Commissioner Macht thought that this expenditure was a valid use for tourist tax funds because these facilities attract vacationers to our area. Chairman Bird thought, and Commissioner Tippin agreed that the Tourist Development Council would not consider a request for funding of the landscape maintenance at Riverside Theater and the Center for the Arts because the deadline has passed. Discussion ensued regarding the cost involved in the continued maintenance, and Acting City Manager Nason estimated that it cost $10,000 for one facility and $14,000 for the other, including mulching and shrub replacement and things of that nature. Commissioner Adams asked whether the City would continue to do the work if they were reimbursed, and Mr. Nason responded affirmatively. 12 Commissioner Eggert thought that it would be very difficult for those two groups to raise the funds to cover this maintenance. She felt that this item should be covered with tourist tax funds. Since the City will cover the maintenance through the end of the fiscal year, we need a short-term solution until the request can be submitted to the Tourist Development Council next year. Commissioner Macht suggested an adjustment of the parks and recreation budget to cover this expense for one partial year. Chairman Bird noted that the City is taking it out of their recreation budget because taxes are not paid by Riverside Theater and the Center for the Arts. Mayor Smith explained that at their last budget session they had to cut staff which included a 4 -man crew which does this work. County Attorney Vitunac advised that the Tourist Development Council could declare this a one-time emergency which could not have been presented earlier. Chairman Bird stated that they should first approach the Tourist Development Council, and if they are denied, they can then approach the Board. If all that fails, we still have time to consider it. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:50 P. M. ATTEST: J. rton, Clerk 13 Richard N. Bird, Chairman BOOK 89 FAG- 6®