Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/13/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 13, 1990 7:00 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25th STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX ** PLEASE BRING YOUR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JUDICIAL MASTER PLAN BOOK TO THE MEETING 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. JUN 131990 ...7 moo. 80 r � r Wednesday, June 13, 1990 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian RiverlCounty, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 13, 1990, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, who was temporarily delayed; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Absent was Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves; Deputy Clerk. The hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River Cotinty, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, *Florida; that,the attached copy of advertisement, being In the _ / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the Issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian. River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for he purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this _�� day of i %-.G' A.D. 19,q�_ i (Business Manager) (Clerkof the t£otltt; Indian Alver ountyjlorida). (SEAL) JUN 131990 PUBLIC HEARING COURTHOUSE/JUDICIAL COMPLEX PLANS On Wednesday, June 13, 1990, at 7:00 P.M., the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will meet in the County Commis- sion Chamber located in the County Adminlstra- tion Building at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL for a presentation of the COURTHOUSE/JUDI- CIAL COMPLEX PLANS. The plans will be avail- able for public Inspection at the office of the Ad- ministrative Assistant to the Board of County Commissioners. The public is Invited to attend and comment on the proposed plana. An one who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceed- ings is made, which Includes testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based. June S. 9. 1990 891133 r %�; BOOK [i!UL ��ij r - JUN 131990 BOOK 8, FADE •38'1 The Chairman called the meeting to order and asked that the Administrator review what has led up to tonight's meeting. Administrator Chandler advised that tonight we are present- ing our recommendations for the master plan for the Courthouse, and a lot of ground needs to be covered in a lot of areas. He then reviewed where we have been and where we are now, starting with the space utilization study done in late 1988, which led up to a plan for a new courthouse that was adopted at that time. Administrator Chandler explained that shortly thereafter there was a change in parking requirements by the City of Vero Beach, which materially affected that plan to the extent that it was necessary to fall back and do the master plan which we are presenting tonight. After going through the competitive process required by law, we retained Herbert/Halback, Inc. and associates to develop the master plan being presented tonight. Almost a dozen alternatives were considered, and in January the Committee presented to the Board 3 alternatives for the Courthouse facility. At the January 11th meeting a determination was made to proceed with a final plan which was presented at that time. Administrator Chandler announced that in addition to the presentation by our consulting team this evening, there will be a presentation by the Historical Society as to whether they will have an ability to manage the old courthouse building if it is retained, and finally, there will be a presentation by Mr. Henry Flick of the concept he has developed. Administrator Chandler introduced Fred Halback to review the plan being recommended. PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANT Mr. Halback came before the Board and presented a sli.de display with graphics illustrating just how they proceeded to study and develop various concepts after taking into considera- tion many factors, among them being the total amount of square feet that will be needed down to the year 2000 - the need to 2 _I bring the Clerk and support services all into one secured area - the 9 block downtown area - the land use in those blocks - the property owners and the actual building configurations - historical landmarks - natural patterns of drainage - traffic circulation - and parking. After analyzing all the pertinent factors, they finally arrived at the 3 alternatives presented at the January meeting, and at that time the Board directed them to proceed with the concept of one main 3 -story building housing all facilities, located in the middle block area, keeping the facade of the old Courthouse, and locating parking lots around the perimeter of the building itself. Commissioner Bowman arrived at the meeting at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Halback noted that the other optional concept involves possibly keeping the old Courthouse and finding a use for it, and the only impact of that is that it increases the parking require- ments because you are saving more square footage of buildings. He then asked Transportation Engineer Mark Hardgrove to talk about the traffic impact of the facility and some of the steps he went through. Mark Hardgrove of the Transportation Consulting Group reviewed the steps gone through in their traffic impact analysis and advised that, after looking at the potential trip generation of a courthouse, they found the downtown area operated quite well in terms of level of service. The existing courthouse trip generation is 800 vehicles per day, and the proposed courthouse trip generation would be approximately 1500, or an increase of 700 vehicles per day. No significant roadway type improvements would be needed because of this project. Mr. Hardgrove explained that they went through a parking'.generation analysis, taking the actual number of employees, plus an estimated average number of visitors and jurors, and determined a need for 442 spaces - the high number of need was 515. They looked at surface 3 JUN 13 IWO BOOK 80 N�U'T'5`00 � I PF - JUN 131990 BOOK P,.3`EE 06 parking versus structured parking, and he advised that if the land cost is cheap (under $25.00 a sq. ft.), surface parking would be appropriate. With structured parking, they estimate $8,000 a space, and therefore, based on land cost in the area and the potential for land banking, they felt that surface parking was appropriate. Keith Reeves of Architects Design Group, Inc., next took the floor. He reported that their methodology was to go through the entire 9 block area, photographing each building and analyzing it, and taking into consideration any that were of historical significance. The first was the Women's Club which is on the National Register, and the other the Courthouse, the main center of which was built in 1937, the wings being added in the '50s. Consideration was given to several options - tearing down the two wings; keeping just a facade as an entrance to a series of government buildings, and thirdly, determining if there was any other potential use of the old Courthouse, possibly as a private office building, museum, or cultural facility. Mr. Reeves then went into a detailed review of their space needs analysis, which they conducted over a period of almost a year and a half. He advised that the old courthouse with the 2 wings, plus the Annex and the State Attorney's building, contain a total of about 45,800 sq. ft., and their study indicated a need in 1988 of approximately 75,000 sq. ft., which need was projected to increase to about 103,000 sq. ft. by the year 2000. All this was presented to the Board in 1988, and the Board elected the option to build for the year 2000, but to construct what was needed now as finished space (approximately 75,000 sq. ft.) and to incorporate with the construction some 25,000 sq. ft. of future expansion space, i.e., shell space that could be improved in the future. Mr. Reeves further advised that in their cost analysis, they basically determined a range from a low of about $80 a sq. ft. up to as high as $150 per sq. ft. In their projections carried into the master plan, they were utilizing a 4 figure of $96 a sq. ft., which is at the low end of scale. He noted that the most important thing they found is that you have the optimum and most efficient facility when you have a single judicial center rather than a fragmented one. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know, in the approach they recommended, where we do 75,000 sq. ft. and then we shell in an additional amount, if that all is contained in the surface parking presented and also whether the plan they have recommended eliminates the possibility of a parking garage in the future. Mr. Halback answered that the plan as it is shown assumes the ratio of a 103,000 sq. ft. building; so, you will have more parking spaces than you need at the beginning, but it meets the code for ultimate build -out. They also left a very flexible situation of where garage increments can be added very easily as the cost of the land rises and the need to use it increases. Mr. Reeves further advised that they tried to address it so the building could be expandable beyond the year 2000. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized his concern that we make provision for continued growth, and Mr. Reeves noted that one of the things the Committee insisted on was long term flexibility. Commissioner Bowman asked if they were saying that 515 parking spaces will be adequate by the year 2000, and that was confirmed. Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that we are investing 16 million in something the court system will be in for 30 years; so, he wanted to be sure that this is a successful project; that we build a facility that is truly functional and something people can be happy in for the long term; and also that if new activity occurs downtown subsequently, the parking re- quirements take all that into account. Mr. Halback assured him that is their main intent. He pointed out that in the material given the Board, they listed 15 different concepts along with costs for different locations, different building configurations, structured parking, etc. He ZZ= 5 LOOK I F - JUN 13 1990 BOOK 80 F'AfE«., advised that they were challenged by staff to get as realistic as they could about cost. They looked at some of the items that were driving the cost up, and in a lot of cases, they felt it was structured parking in relation to what it cost for surface parking. They also felt that the cost was more prohibitive when you took the facility out of the central core and that, in addition, it limited the opportunities to create an urban solution by linking some of the public buildings up into a very strong government core. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they have been talking with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Mr. Halback confirmed that this was presented to them, and Administrator Chandler assured him that we also have met with the City Manager and City staff and talked mainly about parking requirements. Parking has been a primary area of focus with the City; in fact, their change of parking requirements is what necessitated the change in our original plan. In terms of traffic flow between buildings, etc., we originally zeroed in on a 6 square block area and then expanded it to 9 blocks, and we are trying to keep everything consistent with the City's requirements and their planning. Dennis Ragsdale, Assistant Planning Director for the City of Vero Beach, informed the Board that what they discussed was that the first 2 phases of the courthouse facility would require about 515 parking spaces based on City Code. The City staff's position was that more spaces would be necessary to meet the Code, but they were willing to agree with the consultants and the County to put in 515 spaces for the first two phases, and at the time the third phase would be completed, or the shell would be completed on the inside, they would re-evaluate the situation to determine if the 515 spaces had been adequate to meet the demand. If they had not, the additional spaces the City then would require would come up to the neighborhood of about 665. 6 _I Mr. Halback clarified that the second phase brings us to the 103,000 sq. ft., which is what requires the 515. The third phase goes up to 133,000 sq, ft. by 2010, and at that time the City has agreed to re-evaluate according to the need demonstrated. Mr. Halback continued his presentation, reviewing the three completely different alternatives presented at the January meeting. He again stressed the need for a central facility rather than fracturing the uses out into three different buildings and reiterated that the Board directed them to come back tonight with a final master plan based on Scheme A presented at that time, which built an entirely new building and was as follows: Fi •©�,�! •ISI •I lj:s��. �� �'a� o V RMi 1tL'1, " C Y u � ! to YYYDDDIBOn I !!1111 ��� 1�1 LT'LLa 1 .._.. ,� .�..y�o '.��L=amu:: . _ . s• PtRwrlr* � Mr. Halback then referred the Board to the Base Master Plan they are presenting tonight, which puts the Courthouse in the middle, retains the facade of the old courthouse, and leaves the Woman's Club where it is: 7 BOOK 80 Fr��E •�:� -- ,. 27R0 STREET i L.I . � I JUDICIAL CpMPLEX PRIMARY BUILDING -- ENTRIES ' • F PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO LIBRARY 1 STOMMS _22R0 STREEr , wl .i 'LIP ' •+a■ upon tir .�: �� It ATELUTE PARKING : ' t 1 STORAS 2 STORM a _ o ° , C a Poc=ras 76 SPACES. BLOCK 3.; vaRlc _.WTS 3 — 10 ®i �E: � roGw0�ra et0a. , iwrars aur ! w= -�® �I - 2,Sr SMEET - 2+Si Sr4BEr ty ' 11 I1 ,9 201H STREET Is VEHICULAR 40 PARKING 217 PARKING Z Q J CL Q W N Q W cnQ m O U C.i ."! r-� herbert nmua"-clr t..o.Por.a.a �I �__.IFIGURE 3 1 mI 1 Mr. Halback reviewed the proposed parking, noting that there are 217 parking spaces on Block 44, and they have been able to negotiate a long term lease with the Baptist Church for 78 remote spaces. Administrator Chandler interjected that we actually haven't negotiated the lease yet, but the church has indicated a willingness to do so. Mr. Halback then addressed the optional concept of retaining the old courthouse if a use could be found, but pointed out that the cost of renovating it, plus the additional parking spaces that would be required, are factors that must be considered. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know in the event that we can't come up with the other parking areas working in conjunc- tion with the church, etc., if that is when we start considering going up with a parking garage. Mr. Halback agreed that it would be, and passed out the following Structured Parking Cost Analysis, which estimates an addition to the budget of approximately 1.5 million for building a 2 -level parking garage: STRUCTURED PARKING COST ANALYSIS Indian River County Judicial Master Plan Main Objective: To propose a best case scenerio utilizing structured parking and to analyze the cost differential as compared to the Base Master Plan. Major Changes: Lots 11 and 12 in block 30 plus Lots 5-10 in block 44 are eliminated from land acquisition. 336 surface level parking spaces and landscape improvements are eliminated. This includes the 78 satellite parking spaces. A parking structure is added to include 320 parking spaces. Judicial Building Design Fees at 10% of Building Costs Demolition of Existing Court House and Annex Landscape Improvements for Courthouse Facade 9 $10,554,584.00 $1,055,458.00 $148,000.00 $50,000.00 POOK 80 FAGC =fib pr - JUN 13 1990 Land Acquisition (assessed value plus 25%) Block 36 (All Lots but 6,7,8,9) Block 44 (Lots 1,2,3,4,11,12,13,14) SUBTOTAL 35% Contingency TOTAL Surface Parking (at $1,750.00/space) 195 spaces (350 sf/space) Landscaping 15% of area at $2.50 sf SUBTOTAL 5% Contingency TOTAL Structured Parking (at $8,000.00/space) 320 spaces (300 sf/space) Landscaping 15% of area at $2.50 sf SUBTOTAL 5% Contingency TOTAL Green Space Impact Fees Building Permit Fees $836.00 first $500,000.00 $1.00/each additional $1,000.00 TOTAL Plan Examiner's Fee (1/2 Building Permit Fee) Off -Site Roadway Improvements (Allowance) TOTAL STRUCTURED PARKING ANALYSIS TOTAL BASE MASTER PLAN NET DIFFERENCE BOOK SO PAGE -38 $1,130,712.00 471.162.50 1,601,874.50 560.656.00 $2,162,530.50 $341,250.00 25.594.00 366,844.00 18.342.00 $385,186.00 $42,187.00 $341,047.00 $ 837.00 12.543.00 $13,380.00 $6,272.00 $100,000.00 $17,584,444.00 16,124,659.00 $ 1,459,785.00 Mr. Halback summed up his presentation, noting that the scheme they have presented does form a strong urban solution and interrelates into a governmental center. It links the Library, the Courthouse, and the historic facility itself, and there is also provision for expansion by still having significant land around it. They feel this plan has the best economic value. Administrator Chandler believed that the Commission wished to know what the impact would be if we retained the existing courthouse, and it would require an additional $800,000 for parking without taking into account any renovation costs. 10 _I PRESENTATION BY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Anthony Donatio, local architect and Board member of the Historical Society, came before the Board as a representative of the Historical Society to address the issue of saving the old courthouse. He explained that they wish to reference the master plan proposed by the consultants and also the master plan with the options. Basically, they want to discuss 2 items - (1) the idea of saving the Courthouse with the option outside the master plan, and (2) looking at incorporating that 16,000 sq. ft. into the master plan, which would mean part of the 103,000 sq. ft. would be the existing Courthouse. Mr. Donatio noted that a couple of disadvantages they are confronted with by the master plan option is that the County has not stated what cost they would consider if the Courthouse were put up for sale, and also the fact that the building would not be put up for sale for 3 years. Those conditions make it difficult to interest a private developer, and the Historical Society is in no financial position to buy the Courthouse or renovate it. They, therefore, feel that the best solution would be for the County to renovate the Courthouse. Mr. Donatio figured that to renovate the existing facility itself would cost roughly $1,088,000, not taking into consideration historical grants, the money saved for demolition costs, and the rent savings from the outside offices that could be brought in. He noted that figure does not include parking. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that when you add $800,000 needed for parking, you are talking 2 million dollars. Mr. Donatio stressed that bringing outside offices into the Courthouse could represent savings of $50,000 a year in rental costs. it also could be used as a citrus museum or for state offices, federal offices, or even professional offices, but -it would mean the county would be leasing out space to outside agencies. He agreed that it is hard to justify'spending $1,088.000 to save the Courthouse when you have 16 million for a complex that is going to house all your needs for the next 10/20 11 JU T 3 199' nor �� [A" ���e JUN 131990 I Book 80 F"," years, but he contended it would be a better use of the taxpayers' money to incorporate this footage in the master plan. Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Donatio was aware that some of the rentals in the 2001 Building will be moving into our, new Health Building, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that the Health Building should be completed in approximately a year. He further advised that we are considering two other alterna- tives for alleviating the rental situation - the old main library and the existing Health Building. Mr. Donatio continued his presentation, referring to the architectural survey that was done, which showed that the Courthouse was built in 1937, the Depression era, by the WPA, and it is a WPA utilitarian style. It also showed that the building seems to be structurally sound. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we were going to leave the building up, if the least cost to the County wouldn't be to allow that facility to be used by the Historical Society, or some other group, and go ahead and acquire the parking at an additional cost of about $800,000. He felt that would be by far the cheapest way. Mr. Donatio agreed it would if the County wanted to give up 16,000 sq. ft. of the judicial complex. Commissioner Scurlock noted that apparently Mr. Donatio wants to have us use that 16,000 sq. ft. and put the Judges in it, or the State's Attorney and the Public Defender, the Clerk, etc., but he stressed that we want a court facility that is going to be state of the art, functional and integrated - something that can keep people happy for the next 30 years. Mr. Donatio believed the building has had a bad stereotype through the years because of some of the air problems, etc., but what he wished to propose is totally renovating the Courthouse. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the Board in past years spent a great deal of time dealing with complaints from the 12 Judges, and we had some very sick people over in that building to the point where it made the National Enquirer. Mr. Donatio stressed that the proposed renovation would be a complete interior renovation. You have a durable shell, and it is the exterior they want to save. He was confident that any dampness problems could be solved by proper renovation. Commissioner Scurlock stated that his personal feeling is that we don't need it. If the Historical Society wants to save it, that is one thing, but he does not want to vote for saving it to put our people in there as he does not think that is proper long range planning. He does think it has some historical value, but would prefer to see us find another use for that buildi.ng. Mr. Donatio continued to contend that saving the Courthouse will save over 1 million dollars. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are not going to tear that building down for around 3 years because we have to be in there; so, the Historical Society has that time to find someone to do something with it. He personally would like ta,Nsee the original part of the courthouse saved, and we have 3 years to work together on that, but please do not ask us to put our people in it for the long haul. In regards to saving old buildings, Mr. Donatio pointed out that they are renovating the Old Jail for the City; it not only is beautiful; but the City is ending up with 16,000 sq. ft. of usable space for $650,000, which is much less than it would cost to build that same size facility. He urged the County to think about the Courthouse and what could be done with it and stressed that there are historical grants available. Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that we do not plan to demolish that facility for about 3 years, and he is not saying that facility does not have a use but he personally does not want the court people to be in it. Chairman Eggert agreed that she feels the same way in terms of what we would put in the courthouse, and she believed that JUN 13 1990 1 3 BOOK L- _I JUN 13 1990 BOOR 80 when the Board voted for the concept of everything under one roof, it was with the concept that the whole system should be there. Mr. Donatio continued to talk about matching funds, possible uses, grants, etc., and believed he is hearing then that the County is willing to put up the money needed to secure more property for parking. Chairman Eggert noted that has not been voted on yet, and Commissioner Scurlock clarified that he had been expressing just his personal view. He would very much like to work toward keeping the old building, and we will have to provide the parking when we make the decision to save it, but how that money would be generated is something that will require more dialogue. Mr. Donatio, in closing, stressed that the building is a good shell and could be useful. He advised that his firm is redoing the YMCA for the City and also is doing the Florida Theatre for private owners. Reusing a shell tends to be a little more economical, and he further stressed that the bad reputation of the building would be gone because it would be gutted and renovated. They would very much like to see the Old Courthouse saved and listed on the National Register at some time. The Board recessed briefly at 8:30 P.M. 14 o r 0 PRESENTATION BY HENRY FLICK Mr. Flick came before the Board and advised that he represents Vero Development Company, a significant number of downtown property owners and business professionals, and a dedicated team of experts whose efforts have made his presentation and this alternative possible. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to make his presentation and also thanked them for the decision to put the library in the downtown area and also to keep a judicial center in the downtown area as he is a firm believer that these will serve as a catalyst for downtown revitalization. Mr. Flick then introduced some of his team players - mentioning among others, representatives of Frank J. Rooney, Inc., Maxwell Plumbing, McCall Electric, Tom Schlitt, his real estate advisor, Randy Mosby, his civil engineer concerning environmental aspects, and Ken Hendrix and Bruce Smith, his legal advisers. Mr. Flick then unveiled the model of his proposed courthouse complex and made the following presentation: : Vero Development Company, Incorporated t Judicial Center v Narrative Description of Project We would like to direct your primary attention to our three dimensional model (1/16" scale) of Old Town Vero Beach (Blocks 44, 45, and 46) as a means of describing, in detail, the various aspects of our proposal. This narrative description highlights and supplements the above mentioned model Our proposal contemplates a prime 20th Street (Route 60) location just south of the existing courthouse and State's Attorney's Office. The new Center will have primary exposure on 20th Street. Its main entrance will align with an expansive courtyard. This secondary entrance and plaza align and orient with the recently renovated State's Attorney's Office. We intend to exceed the landscaping and streetscaping requirements of Vero Beach in order to create a people -friendly atmosphere. The Center contains 125,000 square feet on four floors and incorporates a modern window - wall exterior. An atrium, highly visible from both 20th and 21st Streets, will provide substantially identical- access points for either pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The courtyard incorporates the intelligent use of fountains and landscaping to create an attractive people oriented environment. The parking structure contains 450 spaces on four levels. It is located on a site just West of the proposed Judicial Center with vehicular access from the Center's courtyard, off 16th Avenue, off 17th Avenue, and pedestrian access off 21st Street. The total potential parking capability associated with our proposal is 732 spaces. The recessed location of the parking structure is intended to maximize utility and aesthetic appeal. 15 Door 80 Pr l�[ 3119 i{ JUN 13 1990' J JUN 13 1990 _I Vero Development Company, Incorporated Judicial Center Expansion Aspects Our proposal incorporates a significant expansion component. BOOK 80 F'�1�E •. The fourth floor of the parking structure is designed, through enclosure, to accommodate an additional 25,000 square feet of office space. This expansion will not require the acquisition of any additional property. The expansion can be accomplished with little or no disruption to the ongoing operations of Indian River County. Since our proposal does not involve the leveling of the Court House Annex, and the State's Attorney's Office, or the alteration of its related parking support, all of these assets can be used to accommodate the present and/or future needs of Indian River County. Mr. Flick first addressed the real estate associated with his presentation and advised that his proposed structure requires the vacation of 15th Avenue, and the fountain and pond displayed on his model are representative of where 15th Avenue currently exists between 21st and 20th Streets. He explained that the Florida Federal Building is depicted as two additional stories because it is his firm intent, as part of private development, to simultaneously develop at least 20,000 additional sq. ft. of professional office space. Across the street is the Pocahontas Building - Vero Furniture Mart - the State's Attorney's office - the Woman's Club - and further up in the corner, the new main County Library. Mr. Flick then pointed out on his model a structured parking garage which is recessed off Route 60 and would serve both the new main library and the new complex. There is additional surface parking that goes along with this program. It is in the north 1/2 of Lot 45 and would be directly south of the new main library. He continued that the judicial complex, which stretches over 15th Avenue, has 2 basic wings, each containing approximately 50,000 net usable square feet. This particular design, which is just one idea, accommodates 50,000 sq. ft. for high security type activities. The building accommodates secure provisions for bringing in prisoners and also accommodates private parking for individuals, such as judges, inside the facility itself. 16 Mr. Flick stressed that under his plan the existing Annex and State's Attorney's Office, which have a great deal of useful life left, can be used for other support facilities, and the present Courthouse, which he believed has outlived its useful purpose to serve as a courthouse, could prove of benefit to some charitable or possibly art organizations. He also addressed the advantages of their access and traffic flow in relation to the various parking alternatives available in this plan. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know what Mr. Flick's plan is to provide the additional parking that would be needed when 2 stories are added on the bank building and the fourth floor of the parking structure is enclosed for future office space. Mr. Flick advised that he has made steps to acquire property on Block 36 to accommodate his parking needs as well as to accommodate the relocation of Florida Federal if the County pursues the proposal presented by Mr. Halback. He noted that the garage structure he proposed can accommodate up to 700. When he takes away the 4th floor, obviously, he will have to provide additional parking, but there is excess parking right from the start; so, if there should be any shortfall, it would be minimal because he is going in with an overload. At this point, Commissioner Scurlock asked the County Attorney to address the legal aspects that come into play if Mr. Flick is talking about "design, construct, convey." County Attorney Vitunac believed Mr. Flick is talking "Design Construct" to give us that building, and we would have to go to the CCNA (Contractors Competitive Negotiation Act) and the design, bid procedures required in the law. Mr. Flick stated that with the inclusion of Frank J. Rooney, Inc., who will speak for themselves, he is offering this package on a construction management or design build, whichever is most beneficial to the Commission and the taxpayers.' Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we can't wing it; we � JUN 131990 _I JUN 131990 BOOK �� fAGE •�� d' must operate in a legal fashion, and as he understands it, we must go through a competitive negotiation process. Mr. Flick believed that what he needs is an RFP requesting a private enterprise to respond to the needs of Indian River County in the 9 block study area. He emphasized that he is offering this on a cost efficient basis, and final negotiations would include a maximum guaranteed price backed by a performance bond. Mr. Flick informed the Board that he owns 80% of the property we are looking at. If this is the final site selection and final conclusion, there are other properties he has to deal with amounting to about 50 of the total necessary real estate, but he doe not perceive any difficulty with that. He stressed the flexibility of his plan, emphasizing that it would be possible to move the building. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Administrator felt he could draw up an RFP that would allow for this type project, and Administrator Chandler explained that this is not your normal RFP. Under the Contractors Competitive Negotiation Act there are certain criteria that have to be met. You have to be quite specific; the RFP must be prepared and sealed by an architect or engineer; and we do not have on staff anyone with the capability or time to do that. We, therefore, first would have to go out with an RFP to get on board an architect or engineer to design that package. The time period for a normal RFP, including interview, selection and negotiation, would be between 45 and 60 days, after which the consultant would come on board to design this specific package. The Administrator pointed out that, on top of that, the Commission must adopt an ordinance regarding "Design Build" projects. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the "Lease Purchase" process, and Administrator Chandler advised that when we were looking at a North County Annex, he had an opinion from the County Attorney that we could not go out and tell somebody to design it, build it, and we will lease it from you. 18 Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Flick about his bonding capability, and Larry Casey of Rooney Construction answered that they can get a single 300 million dollar bond. Mr. Flick stressed that at some time the work Mr. Chandler has referred to is going to have to be done, and Administrator Chandler agreed but pointed out that there are various methods to consider for actual construction. One is "Design Build;" another is your traditional approach whereby we retain an architect to do the design and then we bid it out; and then another is the construction manager program management approach. Once you get into the design phase, that is where you then begin developing those specifics. Discussion continued regarding various ways to deal with "Design Build," and Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Flick how many of these projects he has done. Mr. Flick admitted that he has never done a courthouse, but noted that he represents price stabilization with regard to the real estate as he owns approximately 800 of the real estate necessary to construct this project. He pointed out that Mr. Rooney, on the other hand, has constructed several courthouses. Chairman Eggert believed a reference had been made earlier in regard to the possibility of land purchase only, and Mr. Flick commented that it would not be prudent for him to sell the real estate blindly. He would, however, entertain the sale of the real estate as long as he knew what was going to happen to the real estate. He asked Realtor Tom Schlitt to address their real estate acquisitions and costs. Mr. Schlitt informed the Board that the property they need for their project is I of Block 46, the vacation of 15th Avenue from 21st Street to 20th, I of Block 45, and an addition of 6 lots in Block 44. That is the smallest amount of property that would be associated with this plan, and he claimed that the numbers associated with this real estate are significantly below the property called for by the County's plan, which calls for all JUN 131990 19 BOOK C)U PI46L T° K JUN 1.3199U BOOK 8�-y� of Block 44 out to SR60, Block 36 with the exception of the Women's Club, part of Block 28 and part of Block 30. Mr. Schlitt stated that.based on the contracts they have now and commitments from property owners, they feel their real estate purchase price is 1.2 million less than what the County is proposing. Demoli- tion is not included in any of his figures. When he has contracted properties, it included what the MAI appraisal would indicate as well as what the property owner was willing to accept, and he feels their numbers are very accurate. He felt if you added demolition costs to both proposals, it would increase the difference $200/300,000 and further pointed out that by the time you add the cost of relocation of the on-going businesses on the property the County wants, the County's costs become much greater. He is just saying that without condemnation and demolition costs, the property difference is about 1.2 million. Mr. Flick.next introduced Randy Mosby, Civil Engineer, who believed that one important item that has not been addressed tonight by the County's consultants is stormwater management and water quality control. Mr. Mosby advised that he has been involved in a predevelopment analysis of the existing downtown area as related to the proposed plan presented by the County's consultants and the plan as presented by Mr. Flick, and currently comparing the elevated parking proposed by Mr. Flick with the parking surface area required by the County's plan, there is about 400/500% difference in impervious area. This means that the County would have to provide about 3/4 acre of stormwater storage, and Mr. Flick's plan only calls for about .14 acres. That is another factor that will require either the purchase of additional land or require the County to go underground with their stormwater storage. The cost under the County's plan for exfiltration trench would be about $282,000 whereas Mr. Flick would only need $56,000 for trench, or 1/4 million dollars difference. 20 Commissioner Scurlock believed that might be an argument for the County to go to a parking garage in our plan. Mr. Mosby further stressed that the more stormwater you create, the more you pollute the shallow aquifer. Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Halback if they had addressed this question, and Mr. Halback confirmed that they did take all these things into consideration. Utility costs, storm - water in particular, were factored into the costs of the building and the square footage price, but they did not get into the specific cost details that Mr. Flick has. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we are really comparing a pretty picture that Mr. Flick has presented to no picture because we haven't gotten to that stage. Commissioner Wheeler felt what we must keep in mind is that in this master plan, we looked at the inventory of what is currently existing, what it can handle as to traffic parking, what our space needs requirements are, and then we looked at the properties we want to use to set that building on and tried to come up with a cost analysis. He stressed that at this point, we have not even considered a design of the building - we are just figuring out how many square feet we need, how many parking spaces, etc. What has been presented by Mr. Flick is a step ahead of what we are doing. Chairman Eggert brought up the point that Mr. Flick's plan includes the west I of Block 46, which is currently the parking behind the bank, and Mr. Flick agreed that the east side of the pond he shows in his model is a substantial portion of the now existing public parking lot and one wing of the judicial center is resting on the north end of that parking lot, but he owns most of that parking lot, which he leases.to the City. He also - agreed that what they are presenting is much further ahead than what Mr. Halback is presenting, and, therefore, the sooner this can be done, the sooner the judicial system can be served. He 21 JUN 131990 BOOK Fr��C JUN 131990 BOOK 80 FN.EE401 continued to contend that what he is presenting will save the County 2 million dollars. Commissioner Scurlock did not see how anyone can say it will save 2 million when we haven't had input from the State's Attorney, the Judges, the court system, etc. Mr. Flick noted that so far we have heard that there is a difference of 1.2 million in the land acquisition cost, and further noted that his plan does not include leveling two buildings that are conservatively worth $800,000, which brings you to a difference of 2 million dollars. Chairman Eggert asked if she understood correctly that we would be presented with these buildings as Mr. Flick is presenting them, and the main difference would be interior design, not exterior design. Mr. Flick stressed that this is just one idea, and every- thing in it could change - the location of the building, the design, etc. The County could accept the building as designed on the outside or reject it and instruct another idea to come forth. Commissioner Wheeler noted that Mr. Flick said they could start construction in 6 months, but his plan includes a lot on which the City has an 18 month lease and also part of 15th Avenue has to be abandoned. Mr. Flick stated that, after attending many CRA meetings, he has come to the conclusion that he would not have a problem in dealing with the City relative to an early expiration of the parking lot lease with the assurance that a substantial portion of the existing parking lot is going to remain. He does not anticipate any problem in dealing with the City on anything that greatly benefits them. Commissioner Wheeler felt there are a lot of assumptions here that may or may not happen, and we cannot make those assumptions. We are looking at the footprint of a building and trying to decide where it will go. He agreed that Mr. Flick's model has a great deal of impact, but felt there are questions 22 that need to be answered other than where we need the building, i.e., do we want surface parking versus a garage structure and how do we want to build the building - with a "Design Build" type arrangement, construction manager, etc. He believed those questions will be answered after we decide where we will put the building. Mr. Flick assured him that his model is technically correct; that it fits within all the zoning classifications of Vero Beach; and that it meets all requirements of the Code. Chairman Eggert asked whether the City has any problems with ingress and egress off 20th Street. Mr. Flick stated that he did not perceive any difficulty, and Asst. City Planner Dennis Ragsdale pointed out that not only the City, but the state and the county would be involved with 20th Street. Mr. Flick next introduced Larry Casey of Frank J. Rooney, Inc. Mr. Casey stated that he is not here to talk about the "Design Build" process, but he would say, for the record, that they know of about six counties in the State of Florida that have issued a Solicitation and Intent to Negotiate with a developer for public facilities. These counties are realizing that instead of taking their tax dollars and putting them into buildings, they can put them into parks, schools, road improvement projects, etc., and then, on a long term basis, lease the facilities from a development entity, which he claimed is much cheaper than the Initial costs of designing and building a building. In regard to issuing a RFP for a developer, Mr.. Casey described how they took a study, such as the Halback study, and in 45 days issued an RFP. He stressed that this brings private enterprise and creativity into the process. Mr. Flick has done this on his own and stimulated a lot of thought and ideas. Mr. Casey informed the Board that Frank J. Rooney, Inc., has built 8 government complexes and courthouses, all larger than what is proposed here, all of them on schedule and within budget. 23 JUN 131990 Bou 8 UJ t 4 r JUN 13 1990 BOOK 80 F'r1GE�� Mr. Casey emphasized that they are not coming to the County and dictating design. The County makes the design decision and the developer puts the decisions in place. He contended that privatization will get this building built faster and cheaper, and they will stand behind Mr. `Flick's whole effort because it works. Mr. Casey noted that he has with him Rob Wells who came off a very similar project in Brevard County where they went to private developers. He agreed there is big controversy over this procedure because it is new and unusual, but he again stressed that Rooney has 31 projects right now and every one of them is on schedule and within budget. They have built government buildings in Martin County, Miami, Dade County, and Marion County to name just a few. Commissioner Scurlock commented that none of those were privatization deals, and Mr. Casey agreed they were not. They were construction management, but they are involved in a privati- zation for Broward County right now - a 60 million dollar mixed-use development which involves the city, the county, and the Port. County Attorney Vitunac felt the developer is mixing up two issues. The first issue is the site, and the second decision is by what method should the building be constructed. He did not believe the Board is making the decision tonight on "Design Build," and he pointed out that there is also the possibility that the developer could build on the County's land and not on Mr. Flick's land. Administrator Chandler agreed that we need to delve into this issue and decide what is the best approach. He believed we ultimately will be recommending the construction management approach on a project of this magnitude, but there are distinct differences between those approaches. The Administrator also emphasized the difficulty of discussing specific design at this point. We can discuss the general concept or talk in terms of _ 24 land, but under the law that went into effect in 1989, we can't go "Design Build;" we have to put it out for competitive bidding. Mr. Casey agreed that is correct, but noted that Mr. Flick is here saying he has property; he has an idea; and he has thought it through and wants to bring that concept forward for the Commission to weigh before they make their decision. Debate continued regarding the "Design Build" approach, the competitive process, RFPs, etc., and Chairman Eggert asked that Mr. Flick continue his presentation but believed what we need to know is anything else that is solely oriented to site selection. With regard to selling his real estate, Mr. Flick believed he stated before that he would not sell it blindly but would like to know what it is going to be used for because of his residual interest in Vero Beach. He emphasized that he is not making this presentation with the intent of doing this job and then leaving Vero Beach; he intends to be around for many years to come. If this is a site selection that meets the County's criteria, he will be glad to entertain negotiations relative to selling the parcels and the land represented on his diagram. Mr. Flick contended that what he has presented demonstrates thrift in government spending - 2 million savings in real estates costs including $800,000 in saving two structures which the County is considering tearing down, and all he is asking this body to do is to go through their RFP effort and afford him and the team he is representing the opportunity to save the people of Indian River County 2 million dollars. Commissioner Wheeler brought up the printing shop that is left within the model. Mr. Flick advised that the owner of the printing company, Bob Graves, has been there for some years; he does not want to sell his property; and Mr. Flick felt that.is representative of many properties associated with Mr. Halback's proposal. He believed that you must be sensitive to people's needs, and he is in a position to offer anyone possibly affected by this proposal 25 BOOK 8� FAE JUN 13 1990 L ►JUN 131990 _ BOOK 80 F,1E tJe� bargain accommodations in the newly created space in the Florida Federal Building. He stressed that his plan would represent minimal displacement and disruption of people's lives and further believed that the location he is proposing would benefit the businesses across the street and spur them on to renovate because it would then justify their investment. He personally disagreed with the Halback analysis which states that property in Vero is cheap. Mr. Flick noted that he would be happy to answer any questions the public has. Commissioner Wheeler believed that if we were going to do something like Mr. Flick has suggested, we would have to go to some condemnation. He felt we either decide we have a commitment to the downtown area and take those lumps for condemnation or locate somewhere else. He did, however, want to revitalize the downtown. Mr. Flick continued to present his conviction that this will provide the catalyst to the downtown area, and he felt you should leave room for private development. Commissioner Wheeler agreed, but noted that he just did not want to leave that room between our buildings. County Attorney Vitunac asked Mr. Halback if his consulting team looked at land in the general area Mr. Flick is discussing, and Mr. Halback confirmed that it was one of the areas they considered. Mr. Flick emphasized that he determined his real estate acquisition costs by actually talking to the property owners and asking if they wanted to sell and for how much; so, his figures are realistic. He did not use a formula which uses the assessed value and adds 250, and he felt that process is not representa- tive of reality. Mr. Halback advised that as to whether they considered that piece of property and what were some of the relative costs of those particular schemes - they looked at: at least 3 of the different schemes, and they ranged in price from 17 million to 26 17.3 million and 16.7 million. Those were some of the first they did, and those did not include building impact fees, permit fees, off-site improvements or other miscellaneous costs. The costs they have quoted on the particular plan they are presenting now includes all of those things. The Chairman opened the meeting to the public and asked who wished to be heard. Roy Howard, 805 27th Ave., wished to know if this plan would have any effect on the Twin Pairs. Administrator Chandler believed that it would have no dramatic impact except possibly some changes in signalization. Mr. Howard then referred to the 5,000' of percolation trenches mentioned by Mr. Mosby and pointed out that can be all underground. He just wanted people to be aware it is not 5,000 feet stretched out. Chester Clem, Attorney with offices at 2145 15th Avenue, stressed that he has been located downtown for 24 years and he wants to remain where he is; he does not want to sell his property; and he will fight to stay there. He had real problems with the Board's concept and personally felt that tying the old Courthouse and the new Courthouse together with the new Library is absurd. He noted that if you do away with the premise that you have to tie those things together, you can go to something similar to what Mr. Flick has proposed. Mr. Clem stated that he gets the feeling that the Commissioners already have made their minds made up and that the County Attorney is throwing in road blocks. He thought that Mr. Flick has made a good presentation and would urge the Commission to consider it'carefully. Carl Fetzer, 465 33rd Ave., stated that he is happy to see the downtown being considered. He realized the Commissioners' job is a tough one, but he felt, regardless of which plan they decide to go with, that Mr. Flick has offered some interesting 27 JUN 13 1990 BOOK' Fa,;E 406 r -1 SUR 13,199(l BOOK 80 NGE407 insights. He noted that he also has heard a road block being thrown up concerning design specifications, which he felt is a bit irrelevant because that will have to be done for any plan. Mr..Fetzer thought when such competent people as Tom Schlitt say there may be a 1.2 millio.n dollar difference in cost, it might be well worthwhile checking out. He liked the idea of starting with a finished product and looking backwards, and believed it may have opened up some eyes that maybe there is a bit more involved here than just picking a site. Mat Napier, resident of 2435 4th St., informed the Board that he has a real estate appraisal practice located on 15th Avenue right next to Mr. Clem's office. From his experience, he felt that if you develop property costs by taking the assessed value and adding 25% to arrive at a potential selling price, you are going to be very low. He advised that he is very happy with his location on 15th Avenue and has no desire to relocate. He also is a member of the First Baptist Church and, speaking only as a member, he advised that they have some building plans of their own, and they are concerned about parking for themselves. He agreed that First Baptist did at one time discuss selling property in Block 36 to the County, but at that time they were under the impression the County would construct parking they would have joint use of. It later became apparent that the County was planning building improvements on that property, and to the best of his knowledge, the church voted a while back not to sell any property at this time. Wellford Hardee, resident of Cordova Avenue, and a property owner in the downtown area several blocks from the study area, commented that he does not know Mr. Flick and has never met him, but he has gotten the feeling that Mr. Flick is fighting a stacked deck. He hoped that was not correct as he does not want to think the Commissioners are coming in here with their minds made up in advance. Mr. Hardee stated that it has been his experience that private enterprise can do a superior and less 28 expensive job than if that job is done for us by our government, and he urged that the Board give Mr. Flick a chance. Commissioner Wheeler informed Mr. Hardee that he would be surprised if his fellow Commissioners have made up their minds because they have seen absolutely nothing except this last pamphlet that was put out, and the object of this meeting is to get public input. He himself has not firmly made up his mind even though he has looked at all the different concepts. Commis- sioner Wheeler stressed that he is interested in seeing the courthouse built in the most efficient, convenient location we can find, and further noted that he, Mr. Chandler, and staff, have worked with Mr. Flick closely over the last several months, and he believed Mr. Flick will attest to the fact that he has been afforded every possible opportunity to work with the County and present this program tonight. This was confirmed by Mr. Flick, and Mr. Hardee apologized and stated that he was happy that he could keep confidence in his County Commissioners. Mr. Donatio referred back to the County master plan with the option and asked if, in fact, the County does approve that plan, what the options will be for the old Courthouse - will it be leased, sold, possibly donated to the Historical Society? He would like that stated for the record. Chairman Eggert believed it was the consensus that it would be a year or so down the road before that decision would be made, and Commissioner Scurlock concurred that his thought was that there would be a period of time before the Commission made that decision and that within that period of time the County would work with individuals wanting to save the Courthouse. Possibly there could be a lease to private individuals or to an organiza- tion, and in that 1-3 year period those options would be developed. Commissioner Wheeler stated that his position on the old courthouse would be that if it is economically possible and JUN 131990 29 Bou 8 19 L 4 0 S JUN 131990 BOOK ' efficient to keep it and save it and use it, that would be something he would consider; otherwise, he is not interested in spending 1.5 million to save the old courthouse. Robert Jackson, resident of 2123 Buena Vista and an attorney with offices at 2165 15th.Avenue, advised the Board that he built his office building himself in 1960, and it is right across the street from the old Courthouse. It is a beautiful building; he just finished renovating it a year or so ago; and he planned on spending the rest of his life there. Mr. Jackson wished the Board to be aware of what they are doing to about 20 business people. He commented that it sounds good that you are going to give them the appraised value and disrupt them, but he stressed that in addition, from what you pay them, they are going to have to pay 28/30% to the government and they are going to have to pay rent the rest of their lives if they don't build a new building. His point is that you are hurting the people that are down there. Attorney Vitunac interjected that you do not have to pay capital gains on land taken by condemnation. Attorneys Jackson and Clem contended that is not true - that you have to reinvest in another commercial parcel in 28 months. Attorney Jackson pointed out that, as far as redeveloping the downtown area is concerned, if you destroy 20 businesses, you are going to have to get 20 more businesses back in there before you break even, if you want to redevelop the town. He noted that the PRESS JOURNAL has urged the county to work around the busi- nesses that are already there. Mr. Jackson did not think anyone disputes that private enterprise can do better than government. Having been on the Hospital Board when they built the new hospital, he personally had experience with this. They started out with a 15 million dollar budget, and ended up spending 22 million, and supposedly used the best architects in the country. Mr. Jackson felt strongly that the Commission should use common sense before they make a major mistake, and he urged that they please consider the people who live and work here. 30 William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, noted that he has been sitting here this evening thinking about the 2 million dollars in savings that has been claimed, and as a taxpayer, he also would urge the Commission to look into this for the people. Marjorie Jackson, wife of Attorney Jackson, informed the Board that she has lived here for 54 years, and her parents came here in 1922. She is part owner of her husband's law offices on 15th Avenue. They chose the downtown area in which to build in 1960; it is their work place; and they have supported the downtown area all these years by maintaining an attractive building. They always have been led to believe that the courthouse complex would be built on the present site and to the north, but that now has all been changed by the new planners. In her opinion, the project has-been planned as if all the property in the area were vacant land and not where people live and work. Mrs. Jackson expressed her belief that a courthouse, just as attractive and functional as what has been proposed, could be built in this 9 block area on properties that are now for sale and felt there there is room for all of us in downtown Vero Beach. Randall Grimes, 1455 90th Avenue, noted that he has heard a lot here in 31 hours about what the County wants, but not much about what the community wants, and that includes Vero Beach, Wabasso, and even Sebastian. He was not in favor of tearing everything down and changing everything and did not see why we couldn't use the old Courthouse for traffic court or something. Mr. Grimes felt that Mr. Flick, whose plan the Board says they are not ready to see, is giving the Board a better idea and an overall view. Mr. Grimes personally did not see any problem with having a parking garage in the downtown area. He noted that -we see the parking problem every day, and he believed a -high rise parking garage not only is cheaper, but pointed out that it'would have less landscaping to maintain than surface parking. Mr. Grimes did not feel Mr. Flick is wrong in bringing his proposal 31 JUN 131990 B0°K 80 F,.' 10 � I JUN 13 1990 rr11yy 80 1 C a�Ur. ,�17411 to the Commission at this time. The Commission has said they want to keep the business in the downtown area, and he felt that Mr. Flick's.plan does that, and he believed we could use the old Courthouse for traffic court or possibly for a drug treatment center, which is certainly needed. Judge Charles Smith next came before the Board. He promised that he would try to be very brief but stressed that he would like to see the Board make a decision tonight. At the previous meeting on January 11th of this year, a site was chosen, and the Judges are all concerned because of the length of time this is taking. He believed Administrator Chandler estimated late 1993 before the complex could be completed. Judge Smith emphasized that the 19th Judicial Circuit is getting an additional Circuit Judge, and the county is going to continue to have tremendous growth. The Judges are all of the consensus that we need a single complex including the Clerk and the State's Attorney and the Public Defender. The next consideration is do you want to keep the Annex and part of the old Courthouse. Judge Smith pointed out that the old Courthouse built in 1937 by the WPA was not the original courthouse in Indian River County, but the third; so, he contended that there actually is really nothing of historic value in it, especially since it was all remodeled 7 or 8 years ago. Judge Smith informed the Board that the Judges and the lawyers of the Bar Association have all come out that they feel strongly that the present courthouse should not be used for judicial facilities or even any kind of public building. He personally felt the Historical Society will have a hard time finding anyone who will want to renovate and make use of it because of the change in the federal tax laws that no longer give private developers tax credits for development of historic buildings. Judge Smith also believed that the old Courthouse does have structural problems and major leak problems. in regard to Mr. Flick's proposal, Judge Smith pointed out that it locates the court complex on 21st Street which is a major 32 link from U.S.I. to the airport. In the courthouse you need as much noise resistance as possible, and while that can be built into a building, it represents quite an additional cost. Judge Smith felt it would be a traffic problem and that it was also a problem because you are nearer to the railroad tracks and that generates more noise than if you go farther west. He also pointed out that Mr. Flick has "maxed" out the building height at 4 stories, and courtrooms require high ceilings. Judge Smith urged that the Board go ahead and make their tough decision tonight and select a site. It is regrettable that some property owners may be upset, but he felt in any plan you will have some property owners that are affected. He believed Mr. Flick's plan has a lot of contingencies, including the 200 of the property he doesn't own, as well as the abandonment of 15th Avenue, the City lease, etc. He would like the Board to ask the architects what they think about 21st Street as a site for a courthouse and also about the noise factor, but he mainly wanted the Board to go ahead and take some action today so we can move ahead and try to keep on schedule for 1993. Mr. Flick at this point passed out booklets to the Board (Copy of which is on file in the Commission Office), and stated that this booklet shows that with the cooperation of the County, the building he proposed could be provided by mid 1992. Relevant to the noise factor, Mr. Flick claimed that state of the art insulation can eliminate that problem. He further advised that the first floor of his building has a 16' elevation and is designed for courtrooms. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing at 10:45 P.M. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the proposed Courthouse with Commissioner Wheeler noting that our consultant 33 PuGK , JUN 131990 JUN. 131990 Boor 80 ;,,�GE413 has shown a 3 -story building for the court facility while Mr. Flick's concept shows a 4 -story building. Mr. Flick stated that his building has a lot of flexibility, and -it is under the 50' limitation of the C2A downtown area. His elevation is 49' and that.accommodates 4 stories. Mr. Haiback advised that they figured 50' for 3 stories, and if the first floor of Mr. Flick's building goes 161, he would have difficulty understanding how you can get the other 3 floors. Their concept called for a 3 -story building that would allow you to have a lot of ceiling height regardless of which floor you ended up integrating the courtroom facilities on. Discussion continued at length regarding in which land area you can go 35' high and in which 50' high, and Commissioner Wheeler commented that every architect he has talked to in the past few years has informed him that with a courthouse type building, you can only get 3 floors in a 50' elevation. He noted that if you can go 4 floors, you will need more footprint space. Mr. Flick agreed and continued to stress that the design he presented is flexible; in fact, you can take off the 4th floor if you want. A period of silence followed, and Commissioner Scurlock commented that it seems we all are speechless. He is tired, and he guessed everyone is at this hour. He had some thoughts he would try to outline as to what he is for and what he is against because he did think that we need to move forward tonight in some fashion. Commissioner Scurlock stated that #1, he is absolutely committed to under one roof, which he felt serves the best interests of everyone on a long term basis. #2, he felt we should make provision to allow for a 3 year period for some society to search jointly with the county for a proper use for the old courthouse facility that is economically feasible. If we can't do it in the 3 year period, possibly it can't be done. 34 Thirdly, Commissioner Scurlock noted that we originally started off thinking about going north, but those small home owners came in here and protested, and tonight we are getting the protests from the business area. He personally felt the impact is much more drastic on the businesses. He believed our whole goal was to encourage business in the downtown area, and he has heard tonight that there are 20 businesses that would be affected. That was never his intent. #4, Commissioner Scurlock continued that he is not for a "Design Construct" approach, and although he hears great things about privatization, and some of that has worked well, he has gone to seminars and studied that approach, and it is not all that it is cracked up to be in many cases. It is very difficult for county staff to have the expertise to negotiate the contract, and that beginning point is what is so important. He personally does not agree that private enterprise always does it better, and since, at this point, he is not for "Design Construct," that leaves him with 2 options - (1) to negotiate with Mr. Flick and others in that 9 block area for the purchase of enough land to construct the facility with minimal impact on existing businesses and individuals, and (2) the other option is to again look for that north expansion, but he gets back to an original concept he had all along, which is that he feels that a parking garage, multi -story, is essential to put that package together. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he does not dislike nor mistrust Mr. Flick; he felt that Mr. Flick has come in here and done a good job to present a package; but he is also somewhat of a "doubting Thomas" and would feel a lot more comfortable with the County going ahead and purchasing whatever land is needed with the things he has just reviewed that he had in mind, and then we will get to the issue of who is going to build it and get the best bid through the normal bidding process. Discussion followed as to what blocks Commissioner Scurlock had in mind going north, and Commissioner Wheeler believed that 35 'JUN 131990 BOOK 8+J f'A L 41,, r -7 JUN 13 1990 aoOK80 f', c 415 no matter where we go in that whole area, we will have some problems. He would like to get a good comparison as to the price for this property versus the price for the property needed for the.plan that was conceptually agreed upon in January to see where we are pricewise and also make sure we can get enough property to build the structure we need to build. He noted that if we can only go 3 stories, we are going to have to acquire more property than Mr. Flick shows with this model. Commissioner Scurlock commented that Mr. Flick is telling us that he has 800 of the property and he has willing sellers; so, possibly we should just go ahead and condemn. Tom Schlitt confirmed that Mr. Flick has 80% under firm contract or firm commitments and on the 20% the Board is talking about, they have a gentleman's agreement on the two properties that make up the majority of it. On less than 5%, which is 33' of one particular lot, they do not have a firm commitment. Commissioner Scurlock assumed those people would be willing to sell to the county, and Mr. Schlitt believed they would. Commissioner Wheeler continued to stress that he wanted to go back and interface about these concepts. We were told we can save 2 million dollars, and he wants to see if this property is, in fact, less expensive and if there is enough to meet our needs. Further debate followed about a 3 story building necessi- tating a considerably different footprint, and Mr. Schlitt assured the Board that Mr. Flick's building will accommodate 4 stories. Administrator Chandler recapped that what we are looking for is what the cost of the land is and then can we accommodate an 700,000 sq. ft. building on it and a parking garage, and then what is the price tag on that. Commissioner Wheeler noted that we have basically looked at a concept similar to this, and we have been told that with a parking garage on this property, it is a couple million more. Mr. Flick is saying it is a couple million less. _ 36 Asst. City Planning Director Dennis Ragsdale pointed out that there is another potential impact on the land value because when the portion of 15th Avenue is abandoned, half of the property abandoned goes to the property owner on each side of that street. He advised that the City of Vero Beach is not ready tonight to take a position on either plan, but he believed that the City will be supportive when the County makes a decision. Commissioner Wheeler noted that he has been listening to a panel of experts on both sides, and we are 4 million dollars apart; so, he would like to close that spread and find out what the real number is. He further noted that he visited Daytona Beaches' Courthouse, which is only the Circuit Court; it was done "Design Build," and we had representatives from the Committee who were very favorably impressed. In that county they had their court system under more than one roof, but their county seat is a long way from Daytona and that is a much larger county with a lot larger spread. After sitting down and doing some more analyzing, however, he believed that one building with all the functions is probably the best way to go and the most efficient. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to authorize staff to get with Mr. Schlitt and/or the property owners for this footprint and determine the value of that land as best we can; to authorize our consultants to move ahead quickly and do the necessary analysis to see if we can put such a facility on this basic footprint, with the latitude to expand it a little bit; to endorse the concept of a facility under one roof; to endorse the concept of a period of time to address saving the center part of the old court facility for some use, not for ours; to endorse the concept of a parking garage and determining the cost of same; and to move forward as fast as we can. 37 JUN 131990 BOOK 80 F,GE 416 r JUN 131990 800K 80 Commissioner Scurlock complimented Commissioner Wheeler for the time he has spent and for recognizing the need and being willing to step back and take another look at the plans for the courthouse complex. Commissioner Wheeler wished to make it clear that he cannot support a parking garage until he sees the numbers. Chairman Eggert asked about a time factor. Discussion continued about a specific date, and it was agreed to continue this discussion over to the meeting of July 10th. COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND BOWMAN AGREED TO ADD CONTINUANCE TO THE BOARD MEETING OF JULY 10TH TO THE ABOVE MOTION. Some discussion followed regarding determining actual costs accurately, and Mr. Flick stated that he could provide his real estate information. He continued to emphasize that his is not a "take it or leave it" package;" it is just one design or concept. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairm 38