Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/10/1984Monday, September 10, 1984 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 Monday, September 10, 1984, at 1:15 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Vice Chairman Patrick B. Lyons was temporarily delayed. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Administrator Wright noted that several weeks ago when we opened the bids for the fourth courtroom, staff supplied a memo pointing out the fact that based on the Frizzell 5 yap study of a year ago, we have reached the point where -we need additional office space to support the courthouse function. A fairly extensive discussion was held at that time regarding who has what space and who can be moved, and the Administrator believed we are down to the point of deciding on one of the three following alternatives: 1) Renovating the space for the fourth courtroom; 2) Moving County Court, and if so, to which site; or 3) Building a courtroom outside the existing structure either adjacent to the Administration Building or at the new jail site. The Administrator noted that letters have been received from downtown merchants, etc., in this regard. Chairman Scurlock commented that it appears there is some belief that we will completely abandon the downtown area, but we have always been on record as not wanting to do that, and none of the suggested alternatives anticipate us removing ourselves totally from the downtown area. He noted that one suggestion that seemed to receive a great deal of BOCK S E P 10 1984 SEp 10 1984 BOOK 58 FACE 206 interest from the Commission was to move the County Court to a new location,`possibly right across the street from the administration facility; then the space intended for the fourth courtroom could be used for expansion of the State's Attorney and Public Defender's offices and Circuit Court could use the County Court space. The other option was to take County Court out to the Criminal Justice complex. Commissioner Bird wished to know, if we did go ahead and renovate for the fourth courtroom at the Annex, whether that would suffice for the needs of Circuit Court for the next 5 - 10 years. Elton Schwarz, Public Defender, commented that Martin County is fairly comparable to Indian River County in regard to courtrooms; they have had four courtrooms in Martin County for several years now and still have situations where no courtrooms are available. These courtrooms do serve both County and Circuit Courts; however, Mr. Schwarz believed that Indian River County will need two large circuit courtrooms for jury trials, possibly in this year. States Attorney Robert Stone stated that the two small circuit courtrooms are fine for civil hearings or uncon- tested matters, but otherwise, they are totally inadequate. In a trial where you have any media coverage whatsoever, there is nowhere near enough room; the State's Attorney and the Public Defender have to sit almost on top of each other; and you do not have the dignity that you should have in a courtroom. Administrator Wright did not believe it often happens that there are two jury trials at one time, but States Attorney Stone noted that not too far in the future, we will have another circuit judge assigned. Administrator Wright explained that what we are proposing is to build two county courtrooms, roughly the VAI 2 I size of Courtroom "C," (approximately 1500 sq. ft. apiece) and he assumed Court "C" is adequate for jury trials. Public Defender Schwarz felt we are losing sight of the fact that we have to take into account civil jury trials, and it is very conceivable that you could have two jury trials - one criminal and one civil - going on at the same time. Commissioner Bird brought up a question as to whether office space will be required as a part of the courtroom complex wherever it is built, or whether it is possible for the judges to operate out of -one location, and if so, where. Judge Smith stated that this is a very complicated matter, and he felt strongly that if the Board does decide to go ahead with a fourth courtroom in the Annex that it will be a permanent courtroom. Judge Smith then went into the history of how the present courtrooms evolved, emphasizing that during the last ten years litigation throughout Florida has changed with multiple defendants and multiple litigants. The courtrooms originally were designed as 12 person juries, but it turned out that insufficient space was allowed and it could not be done. As a result, they had to add seats and make the County Courtroom a 12 person jury. Some trials even have had to be moved out of the county. Judge Smith informed the Board that Judge Vocelle, as well as new County Judge Balsiger, concurs that a large courtroom is needed now and has been for three years and that it should be at the present Courthouse complex. He then reviewed the space available at the Courthouse, stressing that the most important thing about the working of the courts is efficiency and manpower, and the clerks, the Public Defender, State's Attorney, etc., all need to be in one complex; otherwise, the waste of manpower will be tremendous, i.e., if files, etc., must be moved back and 3 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 58 PAGE 207 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 58 �u-UE?08 forth, it will not only be confusing, but very costly and a great mistake. 'Judge Smith suggested that one solution would be to move the Sheriff's Department to the jail site or another site so that States Attorney and Public Defender could have more office space. He believed there is enough space now for another county judge and enough office space for another circuit judge; the courtroom space is the problem. Parking is also a problem, but Judge Smith believed it can be easily solved by using the church parking lots which are not used during the daytime. The great advantage of having everything together is that you can be flexible and can exchange courtrooms. If the Sheriff's Department can be moved, he felt that space should suffice for three or four years. Judge Smith emphasized that if we have to move anything, it should be moved to a site large enough for a complete new courthouse complex in the foreseeable future, particularly as there is the possibility that the county and circuit judges will merge in the future and right now we are going to have two county judges who will be doing some circuit court work. Commissioner Bird asked if Judge Smith felt that the fourth courtroom as designed would suffice as a'large courtroom, and Judge Smith felt it would be very adequate, especially as the design entails not only a large courtroom, but a deposition room, another judge's office and a conference room. Discussion ensued as to the size of the proposed courtroom as compared to the existing courtroom, the cost, the financing involved, and the possibility of this all being relocated in the future. Judge Smith explained that the width is the important factor in a courtroom. Courtroom "C" is 26' wide; Courtrooms "A" and "B" about 18' or 19' wide; and the proposed courtroom, which is an octagonal shape, is 32' 4 o � r J wide. He agreed the cost is staggering, but pointed out that it did come in $50,000 under estimate. He felt build- ing a new facility would entail a great deal more money and, in addition, it is not in the budget. Administrator Wright pointed out that the refinancing did not provide sufficient money to do the job, and whatever we do will require borrowing. Judge Smith noted that it is certainly easier to borrow $150,000 or so rather than one million. Chairman Scurlock felt the key is trying to balance how much money we should spend in a facility that, even accord- ing to Judge Smith, should be relocated to a larger complex with sufficient room to expand. Judge Smith stressed that he was not suggesting that we abandon these facilities in 3 - 5 years, but rather, if we find after that period, that new courtrooms are needed; then, the County go ahead and build county courtrooms or circuit courtrooms, but retain the four courtrooms in the present complex. Chairman Scurlock felt the Judge had talked about putting everything in one facility so we didn't have this labor problem, and Judge Smith stated that would be the ultimate goal. Administrator Wright emphasized that is what we are recommending, i.e., we are saying that they will have to have new courtrooms in 3 - 5 years or we will have to have more courthouse space. So, let's not pour money down the drain and create a space problem; let's bite the bullet; build them of sufficient size; and build them now. We already have a site with utilities and it would just be a matter of retaining an architect and building. Judge Smith stressed that a site sufficient for 20 years down the road is needed, and the Administrator noted that we have it. The Judge asked if the Commission is ready 5 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 58 FAGS 209 r1 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 58 PAGE 21® to "bite the bullet" now and authorize one million dollars for the complex: He pointed out that there is a great deal of office space available in the downtown area where the States Attorney and Public Defender could go. Administrator Wright agreed, but pointed out that he is talking renting rather than owning, and we are trying to look ahead and not piecemeal. P.M. Commissioner Lyons entered the meeting at 1:44 o'clock Considerable debate ensued regarding what could be done with the Courthouse if the court system was eventually moved out, the comparable size of the various courtrooms, the logistic problems involved for the Clerk in moving her deputies around to various locations, the delay that would be involved in building a new facility, etc. The Adminis- trator continued to argue that the choice is whether to patch something together now and then build in three to five years or to move ahead and build it now; he believed the money says build it now. Commissioner Bird asked the States Attorney and Public Defender if we did go ahead and build whether they would need office space out there, and Attorney Stone stated that the fact that they are right next to the courtroom is unique in Indian River County, but it certainly is a convenience. He stressed that their increasing need for additional office space will never become less and urged that the Board look far enough ahead, certainly farther than two or three years. Public Defender Schwarz stated that he would more or less echo Attorney Stone. He informed the Board that in St. Lucie County, they tried to separate their offices and locate the misdemeanor and fine intake sections in a different location, but At did not work out. Then his 2.1 office tried to move the investigative work, but this did not work out either as the misdemeanor attorneys are usually young and inexperienced and need supervision. He felt it is almost imperative that the Public Defender's offices be adjacent to or within 50 to 100 yards of the courthouse. Mr. Schwarz pointed out that with a new County Judge, there now will be a greater caseload and his office will need even more space, but he believed if the Sheriff were relocated, it would provide sufficient space for both his office and that of the States Attorney for quite a few more years as well as the much needed fourth courtroom. Administrator Wright agreed, but pointed out that the Clerk needs more space and there would be none for her. Judge Smith believed the Recording Department could be moved as that actually has nothing to do with the operation of the courts, and Clerk Wright agreed. Commissioner Bird asked the Public Defender if their taking over the Sheriff's location would require much renovation, and Mr. Schwarz stated that it would be a minimal expense and probably could be accomplished with County crews. Discussion ensued as to where the Sheriff would go, and Administrator Wright emphasized that we would have to rent space -and what we are trying to accomplish is to reduce overall costs and do a good job. Mr. Schwarz was in favor of that and of doing what would be good for the long haul, but felt we have waited too long now as building would take two to three years. Administrator Wright believed it could be accomplished much more quickly than that, and Judge Smith asked why it, has taken so long so far to get a new courtroom. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that there was a time a when the Board was led to believe that no space in the 7 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 08 SEP 10 1984 BOOP( FACE 212 Courthouse would be acceptable because of the formaldehyde, the pigeons, etc. Judge Smith stressed that there has been delay after delay and he urged that the Board do one thing or the other - either approve the awarding of the bids for the fourth courtroom or allocate enough money for whatever complex they want to build and do it expeditiously. Attorney Chester Clem informed the Board that he has been on a committee with the judges over the last few years, and his offices are located adjacent to the courthouse at the present time and have been for over 18 years. He recently contracted to move his law office out on SR 60; however, he still owns property in the downtown area. Mr. Clem felt the first thing the Board has got to do is make a commitment to have a court facility downtown, and then he believed all the various problems can be solved; the Sheriff can be moved; the District Attorney and Public Defender will have more space, etc. He did believe there is adequate parking. Mr. Clem agreed the commitment for the court facility should be downtown as it makes sense to keep all the court facilities together. Chairman Scurlock inquired where Mr. Clem would envision additional courtroom space as the County grows, and Mr. Clem felt there is adequate space downtown, either in the Annex or another building adjacent to it, and the Board could condemn property in the vicinity for parking. John Frazier came before the Board representing the Downtown Merchants and Professional Association and referred to the following letter: D DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION P. O. Box 6254 Vero Beach, Florida - 32960 September 6, 1984 Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioner: �rN56789r JEp Rcceivzo CQMARD coUNn, MISSIDNERS I address you as President of the Downtown Merchants and Pro- fessional Association. Let it be known that our members are strongly opposed to any consideration to move part or all court house operations away from the central business district of Vero Beach. It is vital to the future of the downtown area that you support this posi- tion. Let recent beautification of your parking areas stand as signal of our interest to keep all court house activity in this area. The joint efforts of our organization, the Chamber of Commerce, Concept Vero Beach and the City of Vero Beach should be suffi- cient -to express long-range interest in keeping the Court House where it is today. I cannot beleive that support could have been gathered for that project in the wake of news of plans to move court operations. Considering the amount of money that the Commission is grilling to spend there is sufficient property on the current site for expansion and plenty of land available for parking if needed. We respectfully submit that your efforts be directed towards keeping all court house operations in one place, and that place remain downtown. Sincerely yours, cn / i c 10 9 r,� John D. Frazier, C.P.A. President Mr. Frazier contended that the County has sufficient land on the present Courthouse site to expand, and pointed out that they can go lot line to lot line and go up five stories. He noted that the churches have agreed that their parking lots can be utilized, and the environment downtown today offers support for all users of the court facility - restaurants, office supplies, post office, rental offices, 7 0 A 1 BOOK f,1GF. 213 r banks, etc. BooK 58 P nc 214 He felt that any plans to break up the court system would belvery expensive, not to mention causing confusion for people in the community. Robert Eggleston of Florida Federal spoke of the advantages offered by the downtown area, and reported that Florida Federal itself is going to come up with approxi- mately(4500 sq. ft. of rental space, and they are one block south of the Courthouse. Also in the future, they most likely will move their offices and build possibly a two story building in the downtown area. Mr. Eggleston felt strongly that it makes no sense at all for the County to put their money into building a non -income producing asset for millions of dollars when it is much better to use what we have and develop the rental space downtown. Sam Moon, Chairman of the Downtown Merchants Association for 15 years, informed the Board that the merchants desperately need the courthouse facilities to stay downtown. He emphasized that the rental space downtown is half what it is in any other area of the community because of the depressed property prices in this area. He noted that here the County has the room, the inexpensive land, the low rentals, and their problem can be solved for five years for only a quarter million dollars, during which time, they can plan their new complex. Attorney Stone commented that in Palm Beach County when they faced this problem, and decided on their needs, they built a new shell around the outside of the old Courthouse. He believed everyone wants to stay downtown with the court system. Attorney Block came before the Board representing the Bar Association, and informed the Board that we are second to California in appeals cases. People are litigating in Florida and we have to meet the need. There is no question that the present courtrooms are inadequate and the fourth 10 - ® M courtroom is very much needed, and Attorney Block stated that he would like to see the court facility stay downtown, through condemnation or whatever. In further discussion,it was noted that everyone seems to agree that the courtrooms downtown are inadequate, and Attorney Block felt they actually are nothing more than large hearing rooms. Administrator Wright noted that we can go in and renovate for.the fourth courtroom at a cost of around $240,000, and we can build downtown, but if we do we are going to have to buy land. He did not feel the parking is that critical at the moment. Chairman Scurlock expressed the hope that the City would also give the downtown area some consideration but he believed they have turned down money for a new study. Mr. Frazier stated that was not so; the merchants just asked them not to form a taxing district. He again emphasized that the Courthouse is very important to the downtown area, and urged that Board either commit to the downtown area or let the investors know. Commissioner Lyons agreed that the first thing we need to do is decide whether we are going to stay downtown or not, and then we can proceed to solve all the problems; it becomes a question of where you put people. He stated that it would be his inclination to start planning to keep the courts downtown and look and see what we have to build and what else needs to be done. Commissioner Wodtke noted that five years ago every office in the County was operating out of the Courthouse, and we needed more space; so, we acquired the Administration Building, and now the Administrator says we are out of space here. At the time we purchased the Administration Building, we were able to acquire the entire block it is located on, as well as four or five blocks to the north of it, for about 11 SEP 10 1984 �naK � F,4GE 225 SEP 1.0 1994 eoe 58 fnf $175,000. Commissioner Wodtke, therefore, questioned whether it is wise to renovate in order to build a fourth courtroom when for $85-90 per sq. ft. we can design and build an elaborate courtroom facility just as we want it on a piece of land that we already own. He noted that court- rooms are very special use purposes, and if we do renovate for that purpose and then move the courtrooms, it will cost a great deal to renovate that space for some other use. Commissioner Wodtke did feel that the County Court system was the logical portion of the court system to be relocated as it is the major traffic generator. As a former downtown merchant himself, however, he,was concerned about the downtown area and had no problem with committing that we will maintain the downtown area as the judiciary hub. He was not interested in putting the court system out at the jail site. Lengthy discussion continued re land available in the downtown area for building and parking, and the cost of renovating as opposed to the cost of building a free standing courtroom complex as recommended by Commissioner Wodtke. Architect Calmes stated that the construction cost of the courtroom was estimated at about $50 per sq. ft. for - renovation, not including the sound system, furnishings, etc., while the free standing courtroom would be estimated at about $100 per sq. ft. He pointed out, however, that in the courtroom complex you would have not only the expensive courtrooms, but the ancillary facilities for office space, etc., which space is much cheaper and would average down the total cost per sq. ft. Commissioner Lyons felt if we are going to stay down- town, then we should figure to stay downtown all the way. Either we are or we aren't, and we should make up our minds. 12 M M M - M M Chairman Scurlock believed we have ruled out the jail site, and it appears we need to make a decision between downtown or by the Administration Building. Commissioner Wodtke noted that if we make a decision to stay in the downtown area, we have to commit that we need additional land and we will have to buy it, unless possibly the City would want to give us some. He believed it would make more sense to build a new courthouse facility on the land we own and utilize the Annex for office space. Administrator Wright felt it all boils down to a philosophical decision as to whether it is worth the extra money to stay downtown. Commissioner Lyons wished to point out, before we give away the land across the canal, that the Administration Building itself will have to be expanded in the foreseeable future and also, part of the deal with the City of Vero Beach was to reserve certain of the land across the canal for future parking. Administrator Wright noted that we have a considerable acreage across the canal. Chairman Scurlock believed that if we do move the courts from downtown, we might as well forget about the downtown area. Angelo Sanchez, President of First Bankers, agreed it is a tough decision but noted that his Board of Directors faced this decision not too long ago, and they are expending in excess of $700,000 on the renovation of their downtown building. He felt when the County expended the amount of money they did a few years back to renovate the Courthouse, that they actually made that decision and now should re- affirm their commitment. Mr. Sanchez felt the County has an outstanding facility there; it is conducive to downtown business; the ancillary services are there; and they only have to spend $220,000 for the fourth courtroom, of which 13 SEP 10 1984 Box 58 FA -UE 217 $100,000 is already on hand. BOOK 58 paG It is a lot easier to borrow $150,000 than several million, and he urged the Board to reaffirm their previous decision to stay with the Courthouse in the downtown area. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board, as a matter of policy, reaffirm their position and retain the courts in the current Courthouse complex and that we proceed with the construction of the fourth courtroom in the Annex at this time. Commissioner Bird stated that he seconded the Motion because he does believe we need to make a commitment to keep facilities downtown and he did believe the fourth courtroom is needed. Also, this will give us three to five years of planning time in which we can decide whether to build new County court facilities on this property or downtown. He believed it satisfies a commitment we have been procrastin- ating on for years. Commissioner Lyons stated that his Motion was meant to specify that we also plan to expand in that same general area; he is not talking about separation in the future. Commissioner Wodtke stated that he did not have any philosophical problem with the part of the Motion regarding staying in the downtown area with the court system; he is committed that we are going to utilize those facilities as courtrooms, but without knowing what it will cost for additional land, etc., he will not approve it regardless of what the cost will be. He wished to know where we will put Attorney Stone and Public Defender Schwarz. Commissioner Lyons noted that we will have to rent space. He felt we must do whatever is reasonable when the time comes, but we need, -to set a course. 14 Chairman Scurlock inquired if the Motion will authorize the Chairman to execute the bid contracts, and Commissioner Lyons agreed that is part of his Motion. Commissioner Bird concurred. Commissioner Wodtke wished it clarified that the Motion affirms that we will expand all court facilities in the downtown area. Commissioner Lyons agreed that was the intent of the Motion, but if it should get to be an impossible situation, obviously we would have to rethink it. He felt, however, we must set a policy and state where we are heading. Chairman Scurlock agreed and felt we can indicate that this is our intent at this time. Discussion continued re the economics involved, the various factors, the possible need to have a complex in the North County in the future, etc. Commissioner Bowman stated that she did believe the court complex belongs at the County seat. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION on the Motion, including authorization for the Chairman to execute the bid contracts re the fourth courtroom with Audiohouse, Inc., Rebecca Starr Design, Inc., and Diprima Construction Co. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 to 1 with Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition. 15 a BOOK 58 PnF 219 SEP 10 1954 BOOK 58; nF 90. THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document A101 Standardform Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a STIPULATED SUM 1977 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPICT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION Use only with the 1976 Edition of AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. This document has been approved and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America. AGREEMENT made as of the 2y day of - `e.�,,,. in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty -Four _ - BETWEEN the Owner: Indian River County' _ 1840 25th Street ' Vero Beach, Florida 32960 and the Contractor: Audiohouse Inc. 500 Treasure Coast Plaza, P, 0. Box 3341 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 The Project: "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 The Architect: Calmes & Kellagher, Architects, P.A. 1125 12th Street, Suite B Vero Beach, Florida 32960 The Owner and the Contractor agree as set forth below. Copyright 1915, 1918, 1925, 1937, 1951, 1958, 1%1, 1963, 1967, 1974, © 1977 by the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006.:eproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT A101 - OWNER-COITRACTOR •CREENiENT - ELEVENTH EDITION - JUNE 1977 - AIA6 C•19:7 - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITEC 1:35 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 1 a 16 r ARTICLE 1 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and _ other Conditions), the Drawings, the Specifications, all Addenda issued prior to and all Modifications issued after exe- cution of this Agreement. These form the Contract, and all are as fully a part of the Contract as if attached to this Agreement or repeated herein. An enumeration of the Contract Documents appears in Article 7. ARTICLE 2 THE WORK The Contractor shall perform all the Work required by the Contract Documents for (Here insert the caption descriptive of rhe Work as used ori other Contract Documents.) An Audio Recording & Amplification System for the "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 ARTICLE 3 TIME OF_ COMMENCEMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The Work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced within ten (10) days of the receipt of the Notice to Commence '• and, subject to authorized adjustments, Substantial Completion shall be achieved not later than (Here insert any special 'provisions lot liquidated damages relating to failure to complete on •time.) One Hundred Fifty (150) consecutive calendar days after Date of Commencement. The Contractor shall reimburse Indian River County as liquidated damages for each calendar day elapsing between the Date of Substantial Completion and the actual Date of Substantial Completion, the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per calendar day. AIA DOCUMENT A101 • OWNER -CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT • ELEVENTH EDITION ► JUNE 1977 • AIAe 01977 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 2 ` 's 17 BOOK 58 MIU-E 221 SEP 10 1984 Boor 58 FSU,9?2 ARTICLE 4 CONTRACT SUM The Owner shall pay the Contractor in current funds for the performance of the Work, subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the Contract Documents, the Contract Sum of Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety -Nine Dollars and Thirty one Cents ($18,499.31) The Contract Sum is determined as follows: (State here the base bid or other lump sum amount, accepted alternates, and unit prices, as applicable.) Base Price $3_8,499.31 ARTICLE- 5 PROGRESS PAYMENTS ` Based upon Applications for Payment submitted to the Architect by the Contractor and Certificates for Payment issued by the Architect, the Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Sum to the Contractor as pro- vided in the Contract Documents for the period ending the last day of the month as follows: Not later than 15 days following the end of the period covered by the Application for Payment Ninety. _ percent ( 90 %n) of the portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to labor, materials and equipment incorporated in the Work and Ninety percent (90 %) of the portion of -the Contract Sum properly allocable to materials and equipment suitably stored at the site or at some other location agreed upon in writing, for the period covered by the Application for Payment, less the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owner; and upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work, a sum sufficient to increase the total• payments to Ni nety-fi ve percent ( 95 %) of the Contract Sum, less such amounts as the Architect shall determine for all incomplete Work and unsettled clams as provided in the Contract Documents. - (it not covered elsewhere in the Contract Documents, here insert any provision for limiting or reducing the amourit retained alter the Work reaches a certain stage of completion.) a , a Payments due and unpaid under the Contract Documents shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the place of the Project. (Here insert any rate of infer st a reed upon.) Nine Percent No ) Usury laws and requirements under the federal Truth in Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Contractor's principal places of business, the location of the Project and elsewhere ma) affect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletion, modification, or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers.) AIA DOCUMENT A101 , OWNER -CONTRACTOR; AGREEMENT - ELEVENTH EDITION' - )UNE 1977 - AIAe 01977 - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 3 18 � � r ARTICLE 6 FINAL PAYMENT Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be paid by the Owner to the Contractor when the Work has been completed, the Contract fully performed, and a final -Certificate for -Payment has been issued by the Architect. ARTICLE 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Terms used in this Agreement which are defined in the Conditions of the Contract shall have the meanings designated in those Conditions. 7.2 The Contract Documents, which constitute the entire agreement between the Owne-r and the Contractor, are listed in Article 1 and, except for Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement, are enumerated as follows: (List below the Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary, and other Conditions,, the Dratvings, the Specifications, and any Addenda and accepted alternates, showing page or sheet numbers in all cases and dates where applicable.) CONTRACT FORMS & SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS GATED JUNE 11,1984 I DATED JUNE 11, 1984 TITLE PAGE Invitation for Bids IB Instructions to bidders _ ITB Bid Proposal BP Bid Bond BB Contractors Qualification Statement CQS Form of Agreement FA Opinion of Attorney OA Affidavit AF Final Payment FP General Conditions GC Supplementary General Conditions SGC Summary of Work SW ' Addendum No. 1 July 16, 1984 A-6 Addendum -.No. 2 July 23, 1984 A-7 DESCRIPTION SHEET NO. Title Sheet A-1 Floor -F1 an_ A-2 Room Elevations A -3 - Room Fi-nish'and Colors A -4 - Construction Details _` -A-5 Finish Carpentry Details A-6 Reflected Ceiling Plan A-7 Equipment Plan A-8 Sound System Plan A-9 H_V.A.C. Plan J AC -1 H.V.A.C. Schedules AC -2 Plumbing Plan P-1 Electrical Plan E-1 Approved ac to form and legal/�+ 'iciwi ary !Brandenburg oeKv Altornev� This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above: CONTRACTOR Indian River County Audiohouse, Inc. 1840 25th Street 500 Treasure Coast Plaza, P. 0. Box 3341 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Vero Beach, Flo ida 32960 BY By —� AIA DOCUMENT A101 • OWNER -CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT • ELEVENTH EDITION )UNE 1977 AIA9 0`7977 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20QD6 A101-1977 4 19 SEP 10 1984 Boor 58 Fka223 SEP 10 1984 BOOK 58 FnE 224 r THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document A179 Standard Form of agreement Between Owner and Contractor for FURNITURE, FURNISHINGS- AND EQUIPMENT where *the basis of payment is a STIPULATED SUM t 1979 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY 1S ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION Use only with the latest edition of AIA Document A271, General Conditions of the - Contract for Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment. AGREEMENT made as of the 2y day of in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty -Four BETWEEN the Owner: Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach,!Florida 32960 and the Contractor: Rebecca Starr Designs, Inc. r 29 Royal Palm Boulevard, Suite 5 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 the Project: "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 the Architect: Calmes & Kellagher, Architects, P.A. 1125 12th Street, Suite B Vero Beach, Florida 32960 The Owner and the Contractor agree as set forth below. Portions of this document are derived from AIA Document A101, Owner -Contractor Agreement, copyright ©1977 and earlier years. New material herein copyright @1979 by The American Institute of Architects and The American Society of Interior Designers. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without written permission of AIA and ASID violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA DOCUMENT A171 - OWNER -INTERIORS CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT - MARCH 1979 EDITION - AIAO - @1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 ASIDa - @1979 - THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS, 730 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK; N.Y. 10019 A171-1979 1 T // ARTICLE 1 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), the Drawings, the Schedules and Specifications, all Addenda issued prior to and all Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement. These form the Contract, and all are. as fully a part of the Contract as if at- tached to this Agreement or repeated herein. An enumeration of the Contract Documents appears in Article 7. ARTICLE 2 THE WORK The Contractor shall perform all the Work required by the Contract Documents for (Here insert the caption -descriptive of the Work as used on other Contract Documents.) Interior Design Services to Purchase & Install the Furnishings, Equipment & Furniture for the "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 ARTICLE 3 TIME OF COMMENCEMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION The Work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced wi thi n Ten (10) Days of the Recei pt of the Notice to: Comrgence and, subject to authorized adjustments, Substantial Completion shall be achieved not later than (Here insert any special provisions for liquidated damages relating to failure to complete on time.) One Hundred Fifty (150) consecutive calendar days after Date of Commencement: The Contractor shall reimburse Indian River County, as liquidated damages for each calendar day elapsing between the Date of Substantial Completion and the -actual Date of Substantial Completion, the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per calendar day. ARTICLE 4 CONTRACT SUM The Owner shall pay the Contractor in current funds for the performance of the Work, subject to additions and de- ductions by Change Order as. provided in the Contract Documents, the Contract Sum of Sixty -Six Thousand Five Hundred Nineteen Dollars and Thrity-three Cents ($66,519.33) The Contract Sum is determined as follows: Base Price of $66,519.33 including allowances as follows: (State here the base bid or other lump sum amount, accepted alternates, and unit prices, as applicable.) Allowance No. 2 Sum of $2,000.00 for prividing Seal of Florida Allowance No. 3 Sum of $300.00 for providing American'Flag Allowance No. 4 Sum of $300.00 for providing Florida Flag Allowance No. 5 Sum of $150.00 for providing Easel. Allowance No. 6 Sum of $400.00 for providing Podium Allowance No. 7 Sum of $90.00 for providing Folding Table Allowance No. 8 Sum of $100.00 for providing Screen Allowance No. 9 Sum of $125.00 for providing Sign AIA .DOCUMENT A171 - OWNER -INTERIORS CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT - MARCH 1979 EDITION - AIA9 - ©1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 ASID® - ©1979 - THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS, 730 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 A171-1979 2 Allowance No. 11 Sum of $400.00 for providing Plaque Allowance No. 12 Sum of $1,000.00 for providing exterior P.V.C. Chairs 21 � Asa Z BOOK 58 Fl�GE ? 5 13 / BOOK 58 ir?ur 2216 ARTICLE 5 PROGRESS PAYMENTS Based upon Applications for Payment submitted to the Architect by the Contractor and Certificates for Payment issued by the Architect, the Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Sum to the Contractor as provided in the Contract Documents for the period ending the Last day of the month as follows: Not later than 15 days following the end of the period covered by the Application for Payment Ninety percent ( 90%) of the portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to labor, materials and equipment incorporated in the Work and Ni net percent ( 90 %) of the portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to materials and equipment sultAbly stored at the Project premises or at some other location agreed upon in writing, for the period covered by the Application for Payment, less the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owner; and upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work, a sum sufficient to increase the total payments to Ninety-five percent ( 95 %) of the Contract Sum, less such amounts as the Architect shall determine for all incomplete Work and unsettled claims as provided in the Contract Documents. (If not covered elsewhere in the Contract Documents. here insert any provision for limiting or reducing the amount retained after the Work reaches a certain stage of compietion.) Payments due and unpaid under the Contract Documents shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the place of the Project. (Here insert any rate of interest agreed upon.) Nine Percent (9%) (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal Truth In Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Contractor's principal places o/ business, the location of the Project and elsewhere may aNect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletion, modification, or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers.) AIA DOCUMENT A171 - OWNER -INTERIORS CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT - MARCH 19,79 EDITION - AIA® - ©1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20W6 ASID® - 01979 - THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS, 730 FIFTH AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 i 22 A171-1979 3 ARTICLE 6 FINAL PAYMENT Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be paid by the Owner to the Con- tractor when the Work has been completed, the Contract fully perfdrmed, and a final Certificate for Payment has been issued by the Architect. ARTICLE 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Terms used in this Agreement which are defined in the Conditions of the Contract shall have the meanings des- ignated in those Conditions. 7.2 The Contract Documents, which constitute the entire agreement between the Owner and the Contractor are listed in Article 1 and, except for Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement, are enumerated as follows: (List belo�% the Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary, and other Conditions). the Dra»ings, the Schedules and Speufecations, and any Addenda and accepted alternates• showing page or sheet numbers in all cases and dates where applicable.) CONTRACT FORMS 8 SPECIFICATIONS DATED JUNE 11,1984 TITLE Invitation for Bids Inst'ruction's to bidders . Bid Proposal Bid Bond. Contractors Qualification Statement Form of Agreement ; Opinion of Attorney Affidavit Final Payment General Conditions Supplementary General Conditions Summary of Work Addendum No. 1,� July 16, 1984 Addendum No. 2° July 23, 1984 PAGE IB ITB BP B B. = .CQS FA OA AF FP GC SGC SW CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS DATED 'JUNE 11, 1984 DESCRIPTION i#ae Sheet Floor Flan Room Elevations Room Fi-nish and Col ors Construction Details Finish Carpentry.Details Reflected Ceiling Plan Equipment Plan Sound System Plan H.V.A.C. Plan H.V.A.C. Schedules Plumbing Plan Electrical Plan and leg peliciv JYattorney l�swx This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER CONTRACTOR Indian River Count 1840 25th Street SHEET NO. A-1 A-2 A-3. A-4' A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 AC -1 AC -2 - P-1 E-1 Rebecca S arr Designs, In 29 Royal al, Boulevard, Auite 5 Verb Bea Florida 3296 AIA DOCUMENT A171 - OWNER -INTERIORS MNTRACTOR AGREEMENT - MARCH 1979 EDITION - AIA* - ®1979 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS. 1735 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20D06 ASIDe - C1979 - THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS. 730 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10019 0 23 A171-1979 4 SEP 10 1984 Booz 58 F,�n V-07 SEP 1 ® 1884 BOOK 5� r4,r1F 221 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document A101 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a STIPULATED SUM 1977 EDITION THIS DOCUMENT HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURAGED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MODIFICATION Use only with the 1976 Edition of AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. This document has been approved and endorsed by The Associated General Contractors of America. AGREEMENT - made as of the 124' day of in the year of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty -Four t BETWEEN the Owner: Indian River County - 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 i and the Contractor: Di Prima Construction Corporation 1199 South Patrick Drive Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 The Project: "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 The Architect: Calmes & Kellagher, Architects, P.A. 1125 12th Street, Suite B Vero Beach, Florida 32960 The Owner and the Contractor agree as set forth below. Copyright 1915, 1918, 1925, 1937, 1951, 1958, 1961, 1963, •1967, 1974, © 1977 by the American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006. Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its provisions without permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will be subject to legal prosecution. AIA D,OCUh1ENT A101 OVNNER-CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT • ELEVENTH EDITION • JUNE 1977 • AIA® C1977 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW PORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 1 24 L /r ARTICLE 1 • THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), the Drawings, the Specifications, all Addenda issued prior to and all Modifications issued after exe- cution of this Agreement. These form the Contract, and all are as fully a part of the Contract as if attached to this Agreement or repeated herein. An enumeration of the Contract Documents appears in Article 7. ARi1CLE 2 THE WORK The Contractor shall perform all the Work required by the Contract Documents for (Here insert the caption descriptive of the Work as used on other Contract Documents.) The Construction of the "Fourth Courtroom" Project No. 82-0328 ARTICLE 3 TIME OF_ COMMENCEMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION _ The Work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced wi thi n ten (10) days of the ` recdipt of the Notice to Commence s and, 'subject to authorized adjustments, Substantial Completion shall:be achieved not later than (Here insert any special provisions for liquidated damages relating to failure to complete on time.) One Hundred Fifty (150) consecutive calendar days after Date of Commencement. The Contractor shall reimburse Indian River County as liquidated damages for each calendar day elapsing between the Date of Substantial Completion and the actual Date of Substantial Completion, the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per calendar day. AIA DOCUMENT A101 - OWNER -CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT - ELEVENTH EDITION - JUNE 1977 - AIAe 01977 - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 2 • o, P SEP 10 1984 BOOX 58 FADE 229 ARTICLE 4 CONTRACT SUM The Owner shall pay the Contractor in current funds for the performance of the Work, subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the Contract Documents, the Contract Sum of One Hundred Fifty Three Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy -Nine Dollars and No Cents ($153,379.00) The Contract Sum is determined as follows: (State here the base bid or other lump sum amount, accepted alternates, and unit prices, as applicable.) The Base Price of $153,379.00 including Allowance No. 1 in the Amount of $3,450.00 ARTICLE 5 PROGRESS PAYMENTS Based upon Applications for Payment submitted to the Architect by the Contractor and Certificates for Payment issued by the Architect, the Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Sum to the Contractor as pro- vided in the Contract Documents for the period ending the 1 ast day of the month as follows: Not later than 15 days following the end of the period covered by the Application for Payment Ninety percent( 90 %) of the portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to labor, materials and equipment incorporated in the Work and Ninety percent (90 %) of the portion of the Contract Sum properly allocable to materials and equipment suitably stored at the site or at some other location agreed upon in writing, for the period covered by the Application for Payment, less the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owrt'br; and upon Substantial Completion of the entire Work, a sum sufficient to increase the total payments to Ninety—five percent ( 95 %) of the Contract Sum, less such amounts as the Architect shall determine for all incomplete Work and unsettled claims as provided in the Contract Documents. t (If not covered elsewhere In the Contract Documents, here insert any provision for limiting or reducing the amount retained after the Work reaches a certain stage of completion.) Payments due and unpaid under the Contract Documents shall bear interest from the date payment is due at the rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the place of the Project. (Here insert any rate of inter st a reed upon.) Nine Percent �9.) 41 Usury laws and requirements under the federal Truth in Lending Act, similar state and local consumer credit laws and other regulations at the Owner's and Contractor's principal places of business, the location of the project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deletion, modification, or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers.) AIA DOCUMENT A101 - OWNER -CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT - ELEVENTH EDITION - JUNE 1977 - AIAO 01977 - THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 A101-1977 3 / iVA ARTICLE 6 FINAL PAYMENT Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be paid by the Owner to the Contractor when the Work has been completed, the Contract fully performed, and a final Certificate for Payment has been issued by the Architect. ARTICLE 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Terms used in this Agreement which are defined in the Conditions of the Contract shall have the meanings designated in those Conditions. 7.2 The Contract Documents, which constitute the entire agreement between the Owner and the Contractor, are listed in Article 1 and, except for Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement, are enumerated as follows: (List below the Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary, and other Conditions), the Drawings, the Specifications, and any Addenda and accepted alternates, showing page or sheet numbers in all cases and dates where applicable.) CONTRACT FORMS & SPECIFICATIONS CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS DATED JUNE 11,1984 I DATED JUNE 11,'1984 TITLE Invitation for Bids Instructions to bidders -- Bid Proposal Bid Bond Contractors Qualification Form of Agreement Public Construction Bond Opinion of Attorney Affidavit Final Payment General Conditions i Statement Supplementary General Conditions Summary of Work Addendum No. 1 July 16, 1984 Addendum No. 2 July 23, 1984 PAGE IB ITB BP BB CQS FA PB OA AF FP GC SGC SW DESCRIPTION Title Sheet Floor Rlan Room Elevations Room Finish and Colors Construction Details Finish Carpentry Details Reflected Ceiling Plan Equipment Plan Sound.System Plan H.V.A.C. Plan H.V.A.C. Schedules Plumbing Plan Electrical Plan This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. OWNER CONTRACTOR SHEET NO. A-1 A-2 A-3, _ -A-4* A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 AC -1 AC -2 P-1 E-1 !approved s o t rm and leg. t' en k nary I. Brandenburg Co I ty Attorn Indian River County DiPrima Construction Corporation 1840 25th Street 1199 South Patrick Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 BY `— BY I r AIA DOCUMENT A101 • OWNER -CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT • ELEVENTH EDITION • )UNE 1977 • AIA® 01977 • THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 200D6 A101-1977 4 27 SEP 10 1984 BOCK 58 L►u 93 SEP 10 1984 8001(°. Administrator Wright stated that he would like direction from the Board as soon as possible as to what they want staff to do. He felt if the decision has been made to stay downtown, we should get what we have to have now because it will not get any cheaper. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously instructed staff to begin planning for relo- cation of the Sheriff's office from the Annex and the readjustment of office space and expansion of office space for the States Attor- ney and Public Defender and to come back with a recommendation as to suitable space for the Sheriff at a reasonable cost. , Administrator Wright brought up the problem of finding the additional monies needed for the fourth courtroom, probably in the range of $160-180,000. He did not know where we are going to get this internally unless we reshuffle the budget; therefore, he would recommend we borrow the money, refer this to the Finance Committee, and instruct staff to pursue it. Chairman Scurlock concurred that this should be recommended to the Finance Committee, but felt we should enlarge the scope to include considering additional land purchases, etc., in the downtown area. Commissioner Lyons concurred and felt we should start looking for around $350,000. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously referred the above matter to the Finance Committee and instructed that they recommend W II funding to make up the part that is missing in the funding of the fourth courtroom renovation, plus an additional $150-200,000 for land acquisition in the downtown area. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 3:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: �E�WEV �. I W* CHAIRMAN J BOOK 5 8 F'AGE233