05/23/1989
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ a ,..J. day of
~.~ ' A.D., 1989 by and between Monroe County, Florida hereinafter
referred to as "COUNTY" and "CARTER GOBLE ASSOCIATES, INC.," hereinafter
referred to as "CONSULTANT".
WHEREAS, the COUNTY intends to employ a CONSULTANT to implement a
Court Facilities Master Plan, the specifics of such plan are defined herein; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has allocated a sum of $25,000 to develop a Court
Facilities Master Plan:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
understandings and conditions herein contained, the COUNTY does hereby employ
the CONSULTANT and the CONSULTANT does hereby accept the employment in
accordance with the understandings and covenants which are reflected
hereiIlafter.
Article I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services for this agreement are defined in Attachment #1
of this agreement.
Article II. METHOD OF PAYMENT
In consideration of the performance of the basic services described in
Article I, the COUNTY will pay the CONSULTANT a total of $25,000. Payments will
be made in four (4) monthly installments of $6,250 each. The final payment
shall be withheld until all work specified in Article I is completed. Any
travel and/or other expenses shall be included in the $25,000 sum.
Article III. TIMETABLE
All projects specified in Article I shall be completed by September
30, 1989.
Article IV. AMENDMENTS
This contract may be amended, from time to time, when such changes are
mutually agreed upon in writing by both the COUNTY and the CONSULTANT.
Article V. TERMINATION
If performance is unsatisfactory to the COUNTY, the COUNTY may
terminate this agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. The
CONSULTANT shall not perform any further services except as specifically may be
set forth by the COUNTY in a written notice of termination. In the event of any
termination, the CONSULTANT will not be paid for services rendered subsequent to
the date of termination.
Article VI. DISPUTES
Any dispute arising under this contract which is not settled by the
CONSULTANT and the COUNTY within ten (10) days, shall be decided by an
arbitration board composed of a representative of the COUNTY, a representative
of the! CONSULTANT and a third representative mutually acceptable to both
partie!s. The CONSULTANT shall continue to render all services requested in this
contract without interruption, not withstanding that arbitration is taking
place.
Article VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 1. Non-Discrimination. The CONSULTANT agrees not to
discri.minate against any of his employees because of their race, color,
religi.on, sex, or national origin and to abide by all Federal, State and local
laws regarding non-discrimination.
Section 2. Accounting Records. The CONSULTANT shall maintain
books, records, documents and other evidence directly pertinent to the services
provided under this agreement on a generally recognized accounting basis that
shall make such available to the COUNTY or its authorized representatives for
observation or audit at mutually convenient times.
Section 3. Ownership of documents. All documents including, but
not li.mited to interview notes, field notes, investigations, studies, or other
data or documents which are obtained or prepared in the performance of this
agreement, shall be the property of the COUNTY. The CONSULTANT may retain
originals and prepare copies of any of these documents provided that such copies
are produced at the CONSULTANT'S own expense.
Article VIII. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
This contract shall not be assignable in whole or in part without the
written consent of the parties hereto, and it shall extend to and be binding
upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract on
a date first above written.
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY I. KOLHAGEJ Clerk By: ~~~l1-
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
(SEAL)
:0/\ IIl/\
\ \
AIWfOVED AS TO 10IfM
/~,ND l..F~AL SUFFI IENCY.
h."~
, '
...~ -
I AU
A IT AC~lfvErrr #1
AlTACl-lfvBrr #1
MONRoe COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
Monroe County Is In the process of undertakfng a comprehensive analysis of Its Judicial
system and facilities. This represents a serious effort by county leaders to antioipate and
prepare for the consequel1ces of sustained population growth. The Florida Bureau of
Economic and Business Research estimates that approximately 77,000 persons currently
reside in Monroe County. Using the Bureau's medium-range projections, the county's
population Is expected to e.xoeed 97,000 by the year 2010. an inorease of more than 25
percent. This growth in populatIon will. in turn, continue to place Increased demands on
Judicial system resources. Through the preparation of Ju~iclal System Master Plan, the
county can respond rationally to the growth and make Informed Judgments on the directions
It will take in providing Judicial servIces to its c.itizens over the next twenty years.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A Judicial System Master Plan Is a long-range, strategic assessment of the resources
required for. the effective and effictent operation of the Court system. The master planning
process Involves p(ojectlng future space needs. evaluating the shortfall '" existing resources,
and developing a strategy for. acquiring the physical resources necessary to satisfy current
and future needs. This process can be subdivided into three primary planning components.
These components are: ·
· Assessment of Judicial System Space Needs
· Evaluation of Existing Judicial Facilities
· Development of a CapItal Improvements Plan
Each component represents a task to be acComplished within the Master Plan process.
These tasks are described below. with corresponding subtasks.
TASK 1:
Assess JudIcial SY8tem Space Needs
The planning process begins with an assessment of antIcipated workload and
personnel needs for the Court and Court Administration. Once these. needs
have been forecasted, the required space needs can be determined. The
process of projecting future judiCial system needs requites objective and
rigorous methodology, insight Into the probable future operation of the court
system.' and application of previous growth scenarios. system
Interrelationships. and funding constraints.
Subtask '.1 IMI Forecast Judicial System Flllng8. Judicial system filings will
be projected in five-year increments to the year 2010. The filings will be
disaggregated by Ciroult and Coun.ty Courts, as well as geographioally by the
Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys Divisions.
Subta$k 1.2 .... Forecast Judicial System Personnel. Based on the
projected ca.saload analysis of Subtask 1.1. Judicial system personnel will be
z0-d
-~O$$~~~au,~~nM L~:6
Z~~ 6S-S -.....~w
TASK 2:
-peed
projected in five-year' increments to the year 2010. Judgeships will be
projected based on the anticipated number of Judges required to resolve
future caseloads. Personnel levers in Court Administration, will be projected
based on historical funding patterns. as well 8S ratios to oounty population.
judgeships, and filings, These forecasts will also be disaggregated by Court
type and Jurisdiction. (
Su~task 1.3 ... Develop PrelJ~lnary Judicial Space Standards. Preliminary
space standards will be defined which provide planning parameters for
determining gross level space needs.
Subtask 1.4 .... Pr9Ject Judicial System Space Needs. Based on the
projected judgeships and court-related personnel, and the preliminary space
standards of Subtask. 1113. the number or courtrooms and staff support space
can be determined. The future space needs which will be developed can be
applied to existing .facilities or to particular geographical locations.
Evaluate Existing Judicial Facilities
Task 1 determjned the anticipated needs and requirements of the Monroe
County Courts and Court Administration. Task 2 wfJl determIne the ability of
the present facilities, to respond to these requirements,
The evaluation of existing facilities will be conducted to anafyze their capacity
to satisfy current and future space needs their ability to promote efficient and
effective operation of the courts, and there current general condition. In
additIon. an analysis of the spatial relationship between exJsting facilities will
be conducted to assure coordination of servIces and convenience to the
pubnc.
Subtask 2.1 .. Perfor,ta Physical Analysis of Facilities. This task will
evaluate the co~nty's existing judicial facilities based on three oriteria. These
criteria are as follows:
"
· Spatial Adequacy
The court. facilities should provide a suffiCient number of courtrooms
and ancillary spaoes to enable the Judicial system to operate.
Facilities are evaluated on their ability to handle present and future
casefoads.
· Operational .Adequ.acy
The court facUitiesshould be stzed and configured in order to permit
effective court operations and should be designed to promote
adequate security with respect to public and court personnel access,
olrculation, and prisoner movement and control.
· Physical Adequacy
The court fa~Uties should have appropriate building systems. structure.
and life safety features, and should be In compliance with building
codes.
Subt8Sl< 2.2 - Perform Site Analysis. ThIs task wltl focus on the ability of
-~OS$~.~~.UI~~nM a~:6
:I~..::I 68-S; -At::IW
. .
TASK 3:
seed
each existing site to aooommodate projected needs. The capability of each
to handle additional parking and expanded facilities will be assessed and a
preliminary devefopment optIon Identified.
Subtask 2.3 .... Analyze RenovatlonJExpanalon Potential. Potential
Improvements to existing facilities for their better utJlfzatlon, either to COmply
with physicaf needs, or to compfy with strategic needs, wIll be Identified and
potential costs examined.
Develop a CapItal Improvements Plan
Task 1 projected the Court's short- and long-term needs. Task 2 evaluated
the Court's existing facilities and began the process on long-range facility
planning. Task 3 combines the conclusions of the first two tasks with
adcJ;tlonal strategic pfanning to obtain a comprehensive plan for capital
Improvements.
Subtask 3.1 - Identify Operational Alternatives. Where possible. the
Consultant will Identify opportunities for improvement In system operations.
An area of focus, for example" might be the use of olosed clroult televIsion for
certain types of proceedings to avoid the transportation of prisoners.
Subtask 3.2 ... Determine Preliminary Priority of New Construction!
Expansion/Renovation Needs. Task 2 evaluated court facUlties based on
spatial. operational, and physical adequacy and also evaluated facnity and site
potentials. This task will determine the priOrity of need based on the
conclusions reaohed during Tasks 1 and 2. The faCilities wJII be categorized
from those most In need of attention to those fea$t In need. and will be
delineated by those requiring new construction. those reqUiring expansion.
and those requiring renovation.
Subtask 3.3 - Project E8tlmated CosL A gross-level estImatIon of cost of
the recommended plan will be generated to Include new construction.
renovationJ land acquisitions, and other required expenditures. These cost
estimates will be disaggregated by facility.
Subtask 3.4 - Develop a Capital Improvement8 Plan. The final produot of
the process wll~ ~e a Capital Improvements Plan which . lists the rec:ommended
sequence of. facility Improvements by type and location of facility, and by
timing and cost of Improvement. A phased implementation strategy will be
outlined which 'will Include a discussion of phasing versus one..time
construction. and also potential financing alternatives available to the county.
The result will be a list of capital projects whfch strateglcatly and
systematically address the county's Court facility needs In a comprehensIve
and viable manner.
- -=- 0 'S 15 t:::I '.8 .... .ell U ," .... .... "0 Mat : 6.
Z~.::I 68-9 -AblW