Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019_07_09 CC Pkt
City Council City of Brookings Meeting Agenda Brookings City Council Brookings City & County Government Center 520 3rd St., Suite 230 Brookings, SD 57006 Phone: (605) 692-6281 Fax: (605) 692-6907 "We are an inclusive, diverse, connected community that fuels the creative class, embraces sustainability and pursues a complete lifestyle. We are committed to building a bright future through dedication, generosity and authenticity. Bring your dreams!" Council Chambers6:00 PMTuesday, July 9, 2019 The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management. 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Record of Council Attendance. 3. Consent Agenda: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation. 3.A. Action to approve the agenda. 3.B.ID 2019-0280 Action to approve the June 25, 2019 City Council Minutes. MinutesAttachments: 3.C.RES 19-054 Action on Resolution 19-054, a Resolution approving the Public Arts Guidelines. Resolution Brookings Public Art Guidelines Attachments: Page 1 City of Brookings July 9, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda 4. Items removed from Consent Agenda. Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 5. Open Forum/Presentations/Reports: 5.A. Open Forum. At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time. 5.B. SDSU Student Association Report. 5.C.ID 2019-0288 Disabilities Awareness Day Proclamation - July 26, 2019 ProclamationAttachments: 6. Contracts/Change Orders: 7. Ordinance First Readings: No vote is taken on the first reading of an Ordinance. The title of the Ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced. 8. Public Hearings and Second Readings: 8.A.ID 2019-0278 Public Hearing and Action on a Temporary Alcohol Application from the Brookings Cubs Baseball Group for a temporary alcohol license to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota for the Brookings Cubs Baseball Games to be held on July 12, 18, 26, and August 9, 10, 11, 2019 at Bob Shelden Field, 530 Elm Avenue. Memo Legal Notice Attachments: Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call 8.B.RES 19-043 Public Hearing and Action on Resolution 19-043, a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks in the City of Brookings at the Expense of Abutting property owners (2019-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project). Memo Resolution Sidewalk List Map Attachments: Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call 8.C.ORD 19-006 Second Reading and Action on Ordinance 19-006, an Ordinance Page 2 City of Brookings July 9, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Brookings Public Arts Commission. Memo Ordinance - Clean Ordinance - Marked Attachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call Legislative History 6/25/19 City Council read into the record 8.D.ORD 19-007 Second Reading and Action on Ordinance 19-007, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Dedicated Public Art Fund. Memo Ordinance - Clean Ordinance - Marked Attachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call Legislative History 6/25/19 City Council read into the record 9. Other Business: 9.A.RES 19-055 Action on Resolution 19-055, a Resolution Addressing Application of the International Building Code with Respect to the Proposed Detention Center Expansion by Brookings County. Memo Resolution Attachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 9.B.RES 19-053 Action on Resolution 19-053, a Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Approving / Disapproving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. Page 3 City of Brookings July 9, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda Memo Resolution - Approves the County's Expansion Resolution - Rejects the County's Expansion a. Application b. City's notification to SHPO of proposed project 111417 c. SHPO Request for Case Report 111617 d. Case Report Submittal e. HPCMinutes_2018_02_08 f. Case Report Addendum v2 g. HPC Minutes 2018_06_14 unapproved h. State of SD Attorney General Opinion 121713 i. National Register of Historic Places Courthouse Nomination 1976 j. HPC Official Comment 073118 k. SHPO Letter 8-29-2018 l. Brookings County Commission Resolution 18-44 Attachments: Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call 10. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Any Council Member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items cannot be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required stating the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required. 11. Adjourn. Brookings City Council: Keith Corbett, Mayor; Patty Bacon, Deputy Mayor Council Members Leah Brink, Dan Hansen, Ope Niemeyer, Holly Tilton Byrne, and Nick Wendell Council Staff: Paul M. Briseno, City Manager Steven Britzman, City Attorney Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9. Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday 1:00pm/Thursday 7:00pm/Friday 9:00pm/Saturday 1:00pm The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org Assisted Listening Systems (ALS) are available upon request by contacting (605) 692-6281. If you require additional assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact Susan Rotert, City Human Resources Director and ADA Coordinator at (605) 692-6281 at least three working days prior to the meeting. Page 4 City of Brookings City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2019-0280,Version:1 Action to approve the June 25, 2019 City Council Minutes. Attachments: 06/25/2019 Minutes City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Brookings City Council June 25, 2019 (unapproved) The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 5:30 PM, at City Hall with the following City Council members present:, Mayor Keith Corbett, Council Members Patty Bacon, Leah Brink, Holly Tilton Byrne, Nick Wendell, and Ope Niemeyer. Council Member Dan Hansen was absent. City Manager Paul Briseno, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Acting City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present. 5:30 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION A motion was made by Council Member Niemeyer, seconded by Council Member Tilton Byrne, to enter into Executive Session at 5:30 p.m. for purposes of consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters with the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Acting City Clerk, and Jennifer Quail from BEDC present. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. A motion was made by Council Member Wendell, seconded by Council Member Brink, to exit Executive Session at 5:46 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda:A motion was made by Council Member Wendell, seconded by Council Member Tilton Byrne, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne Absent: 1 – Hansen. 3.A. Action to approve the agenda. 3.B. Action to approve the June 11, 2019 City Council Minutes. 3.C. Action on Annual Malt Beverage Alcohol License Renewal for Main Street Pub, 408 Main Avenue. Open Forum City Manager Paul Briseno introduced new city staff member Dusty Rodiek, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Director. FIRST READING – Ordinance 19-006.Introduction and First Reading was held on Ordinance 19-006, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Brookings Public Arts Commission. Second Reading: July 9, 2019. FIRST READING – Ordinance 19-007. Introduction and First Reading was held on Ordinance 19-007, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Dedicated Public Art Fund. Second Reading: July 9, 2019. Temporary Alcohol Application – Volunteer Fire Assoc. A public hearing was held on a Temporary Alcohol Application for the Brookings Volunteer Fire Association Street Dance to be held in the 300 Block of Main Ave. on July 27, 2019. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Bacon, to approve the Temporary Alcohol Application. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; Absent: 1 – Hansen. On-Off Sale Malt License. A public hearing was held on a request for an On-Off Sale Malt License for Commonwealth Gaming & Holding Co., dba Deuces Casino, Bryant Soberg and Kirby Muilenburg, owners, 223 6th St., Suite 105C, legal description: South 114’ of the West 69.3’ of Lot 20, and the South 114’ of Lot 21, Block 21, Block 3, Henry’s Addition. A motion was made by Council Member Niemeyer, seconded by Council Member Wendell, that the On-Off Sale License be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; No: 1 – Bacon; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-049. A public hearing was held on Resolution 19-049, a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement for Commonwealth Gaming & Holdings, Co., dba Deuces Casino, Bryant Soberg and Kirby Muilenburg, owners, 223 6th Street, Suite 105C, Brookings, South Dakota, legal description: South 114’ of the West 69.3’ of Lot 20, and the South 114’ of Lot 21, Block 21, Block 3, Henry’s Addition. A motion was made by Council Member Wendell, seconded by Council Member Brink, that Resolution 19-049 be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; No: 1 – Bacon; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-049 - Commonwealth Gaming & Holding, Co., dba Deuces Casino (Suite 105C) – Wine Operating Agreement Be It Resolved by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby approves a Lease Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management Agreement for Wine between the City of Brookings and Bryant Soberg and Kirby Muilenburg, owners, Commonwealth Gaming & Holdings Co., dba Deuces Casino, for the purpose of a liquor manager to operate the On-Sale Establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at 223 6th Street, Suite 105C. Be It Further Resolved that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years, with a renewal for another five (5) years. Ordinance 19-009. A second reading was held on Ordinance 19-009, an Ordinance Authorizing Supplemental Appropriation #2 to the 2019 Budget. A motion was made by Council Member Bacon, seconded by Council Member Tilton Byrne, that Ordinance 19-009 be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Ordinance 19-010. A second reading was held on Ordinance 19-010, an Ordinance Amending Section 2-34 of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings and pertaining to the First Reading Policy of Ordinances in the City of Brookings. A motion was made by Council Member Wendell, seconded by Council Member Bacon, that Ordinance 19-010 be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-050. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Niemeyer, that Resolution 19-050, a Resolution providing Financial Commitment for a 2019 Federal BUILD Grant to fund the development of the I-29 and 20th Street South Interchange, be approved. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to amend the Resolution to include “Whereas, acceptance of a successful grant would require written notice from the state of South Dakota that the interchange’s future maintenance will be funded by the state of South Dakota and contained in the STIP.” The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne Absent: 1 – Hansen. The motion on Resoution19-050, as amended, carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-050 - A Resolution Providing Financial Commitment for a 2019 Federal BUILD Grant to fund the development of the I-29 and 20th Street South Interchange Whereas, the City of Brookings supports the development of a I-29 and 20th Street South Interchange; and Whereas, the City of Brookings is desirous in providing increased economic development opportunities, connectivity and safety improvements; and Whereas, the Federal Government has grant funds available through the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program; and Whereas, the City of Brookings will commit the necessary funds in Fiscal Year 2019 toward the local match not to exceed $2 million; and Whereas, the City of Brookings supports the Brookings Economic Development Corporation’s application for the I-29 and 20th Street South Interchange Project; and Whereas, acceptance of a successful grant would require written notice from the state of South Dakota that the interchange’s future maintenance will be funded by the state of South Dakota and contained in the STIP. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the City Council of the City of Brookings financially supports the described 2019 application for the I-29 and 20th Street South Interchange Project, upon receiving the grant. Resolution 19-051. A motion was made by Council Member Niemeyer, seconded by Council Member Bacon, that Resolution 19-051, a Resolution authorizing the City of Brookings to Amend the Brookings Marketplace Development Agreement, be approved. Public Comment: Jacob Mills, Dennis Bielfeldt, and John Mills. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; No: 1 – Brink; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-051 - Resolution Authorizing the City of Brookings to Amend the Brookings Marketplace Development Agreement Whereas, the City of Brookings approved a Development Agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings Marketplace, LLC on December 13, 2016; and Whereas, the parties now desire to again modify Sections 4 and 7 of said Development Agreement to extend the time of retail recruitment and performance of due diligence activities by the Developer until July 1, 2021. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: 1.That Amendment to the Development Agreement by and between the City of Brookings and Brookings Marketplace, LLC as described herein is hereby approved, and 2.That the Mayor, City Manager and Acting City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the documents required to complete the Amendment described herein, consistent with the terms of this Resolution. Resolution 19-052. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Bacon, that Resolution 19-052, a Resolution authorizing the Transfer of Real Property to Brookings Economic Development Corporation for Economic Development Purposes, be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Corbett, Niemeyer, Brink, Bacon, Wendell, and Tilton Byrne; Absent: 1 – Hansen. Resolution 19-052 - A Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Real Property to Brookings Economic Development Corporation for Economic Development Purposes Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as follows: Whereas, the Brookings Economic Development Corporation desires to purchase approximately eight (8) acres of real property described as a portion of Block Eleven (11) of Freeland Addition to the City of Brookings, for the price of Sixty-five thousand three hundred forty dollars ($65,340) per acre. Whereas, for the express purpose of furthering economic growth and development of the City of Brookings, South Dakota the Brookings Economic Development Corporation agrees to sell, convey or otherwise transfer said property to a business which is, or will be, conducting business in the City of Brookings, South Dakota, and Whereas, it is in the best interests of the City of Brookings that the City provide its economic development assistance in this matter to aid and assist with the completion of the aforesaid transaction which will further economic development in the City of Brookings; and Whereas, the City is authorized to enter into this transaction as an economic development activity under the laws of the State of South Dakota; Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: A.That the City convey title to the above-described property to the Brookings Economic Development Corporation for sale of the above-described property to a business; and B.That the Mayor, City Clerk, City Manager and City Attorney are authorized to execute the required documents in accordance with this Resolution. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Wendell, that the Sustainability Council study what peer communities are doing to reduce or eliminate the use of plastic bags and single-use plastics for City Council review at a future study session. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Executive Session. A motion was made by Council Member Tilton Byrne, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to enter into Executive Session at 7:37 p.m. for purposes of preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or employee representative with the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and Acting City Clerk present. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. A motion was made by Council Member Brink, seconded by Council Member Wendell, to exit Executive Session at 7:57 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Adjourn.A motion was made by Council Member Brink, seconded by Council Member Tilton Byrne, that this meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. CITY OF BROOKINGS __________________________ Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:RES 19-054,Version:1 Action on Resolution 19-054, a Resolution approving the Public Arts Guidelines. Summary: The City of Brookings established the Dedicated Public Art Fund and created the Public Arts Commission in February 2016 through the passage of Ordinances 16-005 and 16-006, respectively. The Public Arts Commission is tasked with developing Public Art Guidelines which require the approval of City Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Attachments: Resolution Public Art Guidelines City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Resolution 19-054 Resolution Approving the Public Art Guidelines Whereas, public art enhances the built environment and enriches the lives of citizens; and W hereas, the City of Brookings established the Dedicated Public Art Fund in February 2016 through the passage of Ordinance 16-005; and W hereas, the City of Brookings created the Public Arts Commission in February 2016 through the passage of Ordinance 16-006; and W hereas, the Public Arts Commission is tasked with developing Public Art Guidelines to be approved by the Brookings City Council. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City of Brookings hereby approves the Public Art Guidelines. Dated at Brookings, SD, this 9th day of July, 2019. CITY OF BROOKINGS ________________________________ Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________________ Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk ART IN PUBLIC PLACES GUIDELINES | BROOKINGS, SD The vision of the Brookings Public Art Guidelines is to create public art spaces and experiences that enrich the quality of life in Brookings, South Dakota and beyond. 2 INDEX Introduction Enabling Documents Rights and Responsibilities Acquisition Policy Donation Policy Collections Maintenance Policy Public Right-Of-Way Policy Deaccessioning Policy Opportunities and Partners 3 INTRODUCTION MISSION The Brookings Public Arts Commission strives to enhance the built environment and reputation of the City of Brookings; enriches the lives of its residents and visitors; serves as a vehicle to attract new businesses and citizens; and encourages artists and the community to engage in creative activities and artistic development. DEFINITIONS Acquisition: The process used for acquiring a work of art for the City’s public art collection. Artworks may be acquired by means of purchase, donation, bequest, exchange or other transactions by which title passes to the City of Brookings Accession: the formal transfer of ownership of a work of art into the City’s collection and subsequent cataloging of the work within the collection inventory. Administrator: includes the Brookings Public Arts Commission and any representatives thereof. Agreement: includes any written agreement pertaining to the planning, design, development, fabrication, delivery and/or installation, maintenance and deaccession of an artwork, including but not limited to letters of intent (LOIs), memoranda of understanding (MOUs), commission agreements, contracts and construction agreements. Artist: Artist is a person(s) with a sustained practice in the creation of works of fine art or crafts, and includes individuals or artist teams. For the purposes of the Public Art Program, “Artist” may not apply to the project design architect, landscape architect, or other design professionals on the project design team. Artwork: Original creative expression by an Artist(s). Built Environment: The buildings, structures and improvements of the City. Commission: The Brookings Public Arts Commission appointed by the City Council, pursuant to Ordinance No. 16-006. Deaccession: the formal catalog process used for the removal or relocation of an object from the City’s public art collection; for example, to protect public safety when the artwork presents a hazard or liability through deterioration or damage, artwork may be deaccessioned. Public Art: Public Art is art in public spaces. Public Art may include, but is not limited to, permanent or temporary works of art such as murals, sculpture, memorials, integrated architectural ornamentation, community art, digital new media, or performance art. Public Art would normally not include paving, incidental architectural ornamentation, landscaping, signs, plaques, or markers, historical or religious artifacts, or other objects of unknown authorship. The City reserves the right to enter into a memorandum of understanding or other agreements with community art partners for temporary or long-term installations on City-owned property. 4 Public Art Collection: the collection of art purchased, commissioned, gifted, or otherwise acquired by the City to display in public places. Public Art Collection Program: the process, policies and procedures by which new Public Art is obtained by the Brookings Public Art Commission for the City of Brookings pursuant to Ordinances 16-005 and 16-006 and these guidelines. ENABLING DOCUMENTS Brookings City Ordinances 16-005 and 16-006, adopted on February 12, 2016, established the Dedicated Public Art Fund and the Brookings Public Arts Commission. PUBLIC ART FUND Purpose The purpose of the Dedicated Public Art Fund is to provide funding for the advancement of a comprehensive public art appreciation and public displays program through design, purchase, acquisition, installation and maintenance of public art as well as other public art-related activities for the City of Brookings. Funding The Dedicated Public Art Fund receives an annual appropriation of one percent (1%) of annual capital expenditures from each revenue fund which is within the City Council’s budgetary authority and which has an appropriation for capital expenditures. As part of the annual budget preparation process, the Capital expenditures used for purposes of establishing this annual appropriation includes equipment, infrastructure, construction projects and real estate that are either new acquisitions or replacements or enhancements of existing capital assets. Administration In accordance with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54 (“GASB 54”), the dedicated public art fund shall be reported as part of the general fund for financial reporting purposes, but shall be maintained individually for accounting purposes and budgetary comparisons. A Brookings Public Arts Commission, which is charged with the duty to recommend policies and guidelines for the advancement of public art throughout the community, shall also recommend to the city manager proposed expenditures of the public art fund which are less than $25,000. The city council shall have final approval of all policies and guidelines recommended by the commission, and shall also approve proposed expenditures for public arts projects which equal or exceed $25,000. Effective Date The effective date of the Public Art Fund is January 1, 2017. BROOKINGS PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION Mission 5 The Brookings Public Arts Commission strives to enhance the built environment and reputation of the City of Brookings; enriches the lives of its residents and visitors; serves as a vehicle for attracting new businesses and citizens; and encourages artists and the community to engage in creative activities and artistic development. Purposes The role and purposes of the Brookings Public Arts Commission are as follows: 1. To develop a unified public art strategy for the City of Brookings; 2. To advise the City Council and other community groups and agencies who are initiating a public art project concerning the proposed site, selection of a professional artist and commissioning of a public artwork; 3. To oversee the Public Art Fund; 4. To guide and monitor design development process of public art projects through reviews at various stages to ensure artistic and design quality, integration with the site and relevance to the community; 5. To approve the final design of public art projects prior to fabrication; 6. To approve the final artwork, installation procedures, and maintenance plan of public art projects prior to installation; and 7. To prepare recommendations and report upon the design or proposed design of any municipal building, bridge, approach, fence or other structure containing public art elements and that is erected or to be erected upon land belonging to the City, and upon the design or proposed design of any arch, bridge, structure or approach which is the property of any person, firm or corporation, and extends in, over or upon any street, avenue, highway, park or public place. Membership Manner of Appointment, Composition, Terms, and Compensation: Members of the Brookings Public Arts Commission (Commission) will be appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, for three-year terms that commence in January. Members may be appointed for additional three-year terms. The initial terms of office shall be staggered in 1, 2 and 3 year increments. Any members whose term expires may be reappointed. The Commission shall include specific professional expertise in public art or the visual arts, such as contemporary arts curator, museum director, professor of art or art history, and design professionals such as architects, landscape architects, and urban planners. The Commission shall consist of at least three art or design professionals. The Commission shall be comprised of eight (8) to ten (10) members who are representative of the following: Brookings Arts Council, SDSU School of Design, South Dakota Art Museum, Chamber of Commerce and/or Convention Visitor’s Bureau Board, art professional, design professional, landscape architect/urban planner, representative from the Historical Preservation Commission, and two citizens-at-large. Non-voting liaisons shall include, but are not limited to, Community Development Director, City Park and Recreation Director, City Clerk, and Finance Director. All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation. 6 Qualification of Members: A majority of the members of the Commission shall be residents of the City. Vacancies: If a vacancy on the Commission occurs prior to the expiration of a term, the vacancy may be filled by appointment for a term not exceeding three years. If a member is absent from three consecutive regular meetings without authorization from the chairperson, the member's seat may be considered vacant, and a new member may be appointed. Officers: The Commission will designate from among its membership a chairperson, vice- chairperson and such other officers and subcommittees as it deems appropriate and necessary. Meetings: The Commission will meet at such times and places as may be determined by the Commission. A majority of members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. The Commission meetings shall be open to the public and shall comply with City open meetings policies. Powers and Authority: The powers and authority of the Commission shall include, but are not limited to: 1. The Commission shall develop and recommend revisions to the Brookings Public Art Guidelines, which shall include criteria for accepting donations or gifts, both of cash and tangible art, a method or methods for the selection of artists and public art projects and for the placement of public art projects. The City Council shall have final approval of all Brookings Public Art policies and guidelines. 2. The Commission shall recommend to the City Manager and City Council proposed public art acquisitions and the placement, maintenance, relocation, and deaccessioning of artwork acquired through the public art program. 3. The Commission shall have the custody and care of all works of art owned by the City and under the control of any department of the City. The term “work of art” shall apply to and include all paintings, mural decorations, statues, bas-reliefs, sculptures, monuments, fountains, arches, ornamental gateways and other structures of a permanent character intended for ornament or commemoration. 4. No work of art shall become the property of the City by purchase, gift or otherwise, until it, or a design or model thereof, and a proposed plan for it shall have been approved by the Commission. 5. No work of art shall be erected or placed in, over or upon, or allowed to extend in, over or upon any street, avenue, square, park or other property belonging to the City without approval of the commission in consultation with appropriate city departments. The Commission may recommend the removal, relocation or alteration of any existing work of art owned by the City, and no such work of art shall be removed, relocated or altered without such recommendation and approval. The additional, removal, relocation, or alteration of any work of art shall be approved by the city manager or the city manager’s designee. 6. The commission shall study, prepare recommendations and report upon the design or 7 proposed design of any municipal building, bridge, approach, fence or other structure erected or to be erected upon land belonging to the city, and upon the design or proposed design of any arch, bridge, structure or approach which is the property of any person, firm or corporation, and extends in, over or upon any street, avenue, highway, park or public place. 7. The Commission shall recommend the purchase or commission of public art projects, including the design, execution and/or placement of such public art with approval of expenditures by the City Manager and City Council consistent with Section 2-115 of Municipal Code. 8. The commission shall consult with the department responsible for a particular construction project regarding the design, execution and/or possible placement of a public art project in connection with such construction project. 9. The Commission shall review the inventory of public art, including assessing the status of maintenance, compile a list of potential sites for public art projects, and prepare recommendations as to location, relocation, and deaccessioning of public art. 10. The Commission may also initiate public forums when appropriate to determine thematic approaches and location options for public art. BYLAWS | Brookings Public Arts Commission ARTICLE 1. NAME. The name of the commission is the Brookings Public Arts Commission (Commission). ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE AND DUTIES. The purpose of the Commission is to enhance the built environment of the City of Brookings and enriches the lives of its citizens through public art. A dedicated funding source for an established program of public art enhances the reputation of the City and serves as a vehicle for attracting new businesses and citizens. A public art program encourages the community’s artists and citizens to engage in creative activities and artistic development. A public arts commission can develop and implement a unified public art strategy for the community. The duties of the Brookings Public Arts Commission are as follows: A. To develop a unified public art strategy for the City of Brookings; B. To advise the City Council, the City Manager, and other community groups and agencies who are initiating a public art project concerning the proposed site, selection of a professional artist and commissioning of a public artwork; C. To oversee the Public Art Fund; D. To guide and monitor the design development process through reviews at various stages to ensure artistic and design integrity, integration with the site and relevance to the community; and E. To approve the final design prior to fabrication; to approve the final artwork, installation procedures, and maintenance plan prior to installation; and to approve deaccessioning procedures. ARTICLE 3. MEMBERSHIP. A. The Commission is composed of eight to ten members appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. 8 B. Members shall serve for a term of three years beginning January 1 on the year of appointment. Any members whose term expires may be reappointed. C. Individual members may not act in an official capacity except through the action of the Commission. D. If a member is absent three (3) consecutive regular meetings without authorization from the chairperson, the member's seat may be considered vacant and a new member may be appointed. This does not apply to an absence due to illness or injury of the member, an illness or injury of a member’s immediate family member, active military service, or the birth or adoption of the member’s child for 90 days after the event. The member must notify the staff liaison of the reason for the absence not later than the date of the next regular meeting of the Commission. Failure to notify the liaison before the next regular meeting of the Commission will result in an unexcused absence. E. A member who wishes to resign shall submit a written notification to the Commission Chair. If a vacancy on the Commission occurs prior to the expiration of a term, the vacancy will be filled in accordance with City policies. ARTICLE 4. OFFICERS. A. The officers of the Commission shall consist of a chair and a vice-chair and such other officers as it deems appropriate and necessary. B. Officers shall be elected annually by a majority vote of the Commission at the first regular meeting in January. In the event a current officer becomes ineligible to serve, the Commission may hold an emergency election as needed. C. A member may not hold more than one office at a time. D. The chair, vice chair, and City staff comprise the executive committee. ARTICLE 5. DUTIES OF OFFICERS. A. The chair shall preside at all Commission meetings, appoint all committees, represent the commission at ceremonial functions, and approve all meeting agendas. B. In the absence of the chair, the vice-chair shall perform all duties of the chair. C. If the chair and vice chair will be absent, the chair may designate another member as acting chair for purposes of running a meeting. D. The chair, vice chair, and acting chair have the same voting privileges as any other member. ARTICLE 6. AGENDAS. A. After first consulting with and receiving input from the staff liaison, the chair shall approve each meeting agenda. B. Commission staff shall submit the meeting agenda through the City meeting notification system for each meeting not less than 72 hours before the meeting. C. Posting of the agenda must comply with all state and City open meetings requirements. ARTICLE 7. MEETINGS. A. All meetings shall be open to the public and shall comply with City open meetings policies. The Commission may not conduct a closed meeting unless it complies with SDCL 1-25-2. (Executive and Closed Meetings) and receives approval from city staff and the City Attorney. B. The Commission shall meet monthly. The Commission shall adopt a schedule of the meetings for the upcoming year. C. The chair may call for a special meeting or may cancel a meeting due to lack of business or 9 quorum. D. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum. A quorum is required to hold a meeting and to conduct business. Members may also attend via teleconference or video conference with prior arrangements with staff. E. All meetings shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. F. The Commission shall allow citizens to address the Commission on agenda items during a time set aside for citizen communications. The chair may limit a speaker’s time as needed. G. The staff liaison shall prepare and maintain all Commission agendas, minutes, and all other documents and records. H. All members of the Commission shall observe decorum pursuant to the City Code of Ethics and other City policies. ARTICLE 8. COMMITTEES A. The Commission may establish committees as needed. Those may include, but are not limited to, the following: Executive, Policy Review, Selection, Public Education/Public Relations, Special Projects, and Fundraising. B. Committees may be established by the chair, executive committee, or by an affirmative vote of the Commission. C. Committee membership cannot exceed quorum of the full Commission. Membership may include individuals not appointed to the Commission. D. Committees shall select a Commission member as chair. E. Requirements regarding quorum, meeting notice, staffing, and minutes do not apply to committees. F. All committees shall make an annual report to the full Commission at the November meeting for inclusion in the City’s annual report. ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS. A bylaw amendment requires an affirmative vote of the majority of members. The bylaws were approved by the Brookings Public Arts Commission at their meeting held on September 14, 2017. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OWNERSHIP All works of art acquired pursuant to Brookings Public Arts Program shall be acquired in the name of, and title shall be held by, the City of Brookings. EXEMPTIONS The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. All works of art in the collections of, or on display at, or under the auspices of the Brookings Arts Council; and 2. All works of art in display in private City offices or other areas of City-owned facilities that are not generally frequented by the public. 10 DIGITAL IMAGES Whenever images are posted on the website, the City will acknowledge project credits: specifically, the name of the artist, the name of the photographer, the commissioning agency, the date of the work, and a copyright ©. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Copyright The artist retains all rights under the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 USC Section 101) as the sole author of the work for the duration of the copyright. The duration of copyright in the United States is currently the life of the author plus seventy (70) years. Title to the artwork passes to the client or commissioning agency/organization upon their written acceptance of and payment for the work; copyright belongs to and remains with the artist. Although the City may “own” the work of art, the artist who created the work owns the copyright to the work of art, including all ways in which the work is represented, other than in situ. Artists may wish to register their copyright with the Federal government. The City will not request that artists waive or share any of their legal copyright privileges as defined and awarded by the Federal government. The City may, however, as part of their contractual agreement with the Artist, require that the Artist grant the City license to use the image of the Artwork for purposes of publicity, promotion, educational and other city purposes (See Right to Reproduce the Work). Rights to Reproduce the Work The artist and the City must each agree to the right to reproduce the artwork in any and all forms. Typically, artists will be asked to grant the City or commissioning agency/organization license to make two-dimensional reproductions of the work for non-commercial and educational purposes. The City or commissioning agency/organization in turns agrees to include a credit to the artist and a notice of copyright on all such reproductions. Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, known as VARA, (17 USC Section 106A) assures an artist’s protection of his/her “visual art” especially as it affects post-sale rights, including all drawings, sketches, and prototypes. Under VARA, artists have the right to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification to their work. In some cases where the art is integrated, (building, landscape, infrastructure, etc.) the City may ask the artist to waive their VARA rights In favor of a negotiated agreement. It is standard professional practice that agencies agree not to intentionally alter, modify, change, destroy, or damage the work of art without first obtaining permission from the artist. However, the Commission recognizes that due to the ever-changing nature of cities, it may be impossible to guarantee that any work of art will remain where originally installed and may need to be relocated. Necessary changes to buildings and other infrastructure may require that artwork that cannot be removed may be altered, damaged or even destroyed. Artist’s contracts with the City must address this possibility as part of their agreement with the City by waiving VARA rights in favor of a negotiated agreement. If the artist’s work is accidentally damaged or altered, the artist has the right to request that the work not be attributed to the artist until such time as the work is fully restored. 11 CONTRACT INDEMNIFICATION Indemnity refers to the party with ultimate responsibility for liability. In the event that there are injuries, damages and/or lawsuits, an indemnity clause will establish who will be responsible for paying the costs and any judgment. Indemnification language could require a party to be responsible regardless of that party’s actions or involvement in a situation that leads to liability. However, generally, indemnification responsibilities are limited to the scope of the work to be performed under the initial agreement and only apply when the indemnifying party somehow contributed to the situation that created the liability. The City of Brookings endorses Mutual Indemnification for liability resulting from negligent or willful behavior because this is the best compromise between artist and client or commissioning agency. Suggested indemnification language may include, “The Parties shall and hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party from liability that arises out of the Party’s negligent or willful action. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contracting agencies may request that the selected artist carry General Liability Insurance and Automobile Insurance. It is standard practice for artists to hold $1,000,000 (one million dollars) in General Liability coverage per incident regardless of the size of the contract or project budget until final acceptance into the public arts program. If the Artist is an individual and not a company or corporation, Automobile Liability Insurance may be limited to the minimum required for individuals in the state. General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability policies must be endorsed to name the City of Brookings as additionally insured. Other insurance that may be required is Worker’s Compensation Insurance (if Artist is an employer), Insurance Against Loss. Artists’ subcontractors must provide the same insurance. Licensed professionals that the Artist may subcontract with, such as engineers, architects or landscape architects who sign and stamp construction documents shall also provide proof of professional liability insurance upon request. PAYMENT SCHEDULES Per the national art organization recommendations, the Public Arts Commission recommends payment of approximately 10% upon signing the contract and a retainage of approximately 5% until title is transferred to the City and a maintenance schedule has been submitted. CONSERVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ARTWORKS Care of a public art collection is a continuing responsibility in which the City preserves the work of art as well as the collection in its entirety. It is recommended that all public artworks be maintained with attention to their unique materials. The Commission shall establish a regular maintenance schedule for each work in the collection and the artist of record shall provide maintenance instructions to the City of the work. The Commission will conduct an artwork inventory and evaluate the condition of the art annually to determine if any extraordinary maintenance is required. Maintenance and conservation treatment plans shall be part of the Commission’s annual plan submitted to Council for approval. The City will withhold final acceptance of the artwork until the artist has provided a maintenance plan or maintenance document because not all project elements will be overtly obvious to those 12 charged with evaluation (i.e.: projects in which landscape, water, and media made be integrated with the final project). The Artist shall be required to provide the City with copies of all construction documents, shop drawings, site/architectural plans and drawings, product specifications, warranties, and the names of all subcontractors, vendors and suppliers along with a statement of intent, so that it is understood how to maintain the site as conceived by the artist. The Commission will manage an integrated Collections Management Program, including conducting regular inventory of artworks within the City’s collection, evaluation of the collection condition; initiate treatment proposals and consult with professional conservators as necessary and complete or contract for the maintenance, conservation and/or restoration of the works of art. Where feasible or desirable, the Commission will oversee the training of maintenance personnel by conservators and/or program staff to perform routine maintenance tasks like dusting or washing of an artwork or changing lightbulbs. The Commission shall also be responsible for updating project records and documentation, including the advice of a professional conservator during the development of design documents and prior to fabrication of the art, and maintaining documentation of all conservation treatments performed on artworks in the collection. COMMISSION CODE OF ETHICS The Brookings Public Arts Commission members and City staff are expected to adhere to transparent accountability while implementing the City’s public arts programs. In doing so, the Commission and the staff will not accept any work of art that violates clear title or transparent provenance or is in potential conflict with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention (UNESCO), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), or national protection acts, or the laws of the State of South Dakota. No Commission member, administrator, or collection staff may use his or her position for personal financial gain, to benefit another on the Commission, or to benefit an individual associated with the City. No Commission member, administrator, or director may use their position to allow use or transport of collections objects for private purposes. No Commission member or staff shall purchase objects for the collection from each other or take advantage of privileged information to compete for collections, acquisitions or donations. No Commission member, administrator, City staff, or elected official may obtain a tax benefit for a donation to the public art collection, nor offer formal written appraisals for objects that are under consideration for acquisitions or donation. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE All Brookings Public Arts Commission (“Commission”) meetings are open to the public. Meeting agendas and supplemental materials are posted according to City and state regulations and are open to the public. All agendas, minutes and other agenda materials are available on the City of Brookings website: www.cityofbrookings.org. BEST PRACTICES/CORE VALUES The City of Brookings will utilize Best Practices of the Public Art Network (PAN) Council and Americans for the Arts (AFTA) in managing its public arts projects and practices. All organizations and entities commissioning Artwork should consider their process for developing projects and selecting artists in light of the principles in Americans for the Arts Statement on Cultural Equity. 13 ACQUISITION POLICY BACKGROUND This policy provides a framework for acquiring works of art through the Brookings Public Arts Program. The Brookings Public Arts Commission is responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of such art. The objective of the Commission is that the City of Brookings’ public art collection represents Brookings’ significance as an artistic community and aspires to touch the life of every citizen and visitor, CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC ART PROJECTS All public art projects accepted or funded by the Commission or the City must: 1. Promote meaningful collaboration between the artist, the City, and any other relevant parties; 2. Achieve high visibility, by being in an area where residents and visitors commonly congregate or travel. 3. Be composed of the highest quality materials and constructed according to best practices to achieve results that endure without requiring unusual maintenance; 4. Be well integrated into the context of the surrounding environment. Current usage, historic significance, nearby building materials, foliage and landscape features, public rights-of-way, and potential audiences are all relevant; 5. Be accessible to all, with special consideration to those with special needs. Access to public art must meet all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other relevant laws; and 6. Be primarily an artwork of artistic merit of known authorship, and not an advertisement for any commercial establishment, or be an object whose main identity is as an artifact of primarily historical or religious interest. SELECTION OF ARTISTS It is the Commission’s responsibility to oversee and approve the selection of artists for public art projects. The Commission shall establish an Artist Selection Panel for each public art project. Representation on the panel shall include: 1-2 members of the Commission; A representative of the host site or department; A project architect or landscape architect if appropriate; 2-3 Arts Professionals or Artists; A Community Representative. The primary objective of the selection process is to select an artist whose experience, aesthetic, commitment to collaboration and community fabrication skills align with the needs of a given public art project. The selection process will be conducted in an open and consistent manner. All selections will be awarded on a competitive basis. Potential election process models include: 14 Open Call: For projects with an anticipated cost of over $25,000 the Commission publishes a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) open to all interested artists. To apply, artists are asked to submit examples of their past work and qualifications for consideration. RFQ’s may be issued for specific projects or to establish a pre-qualified pool for consideration for a number of projects. Upon establishing the applicant pool, the Selection panel may then proceed as follows: The selection sub-committee will review the submissions to select a short list (3-5) artists who will be paid an honorarium to develop site proposals. The panel will then reconvene to review the project proposals and make a recommendation for the winning proposal to the Commission for approval. For the proposal phase, artists will be given 4-6 weeks to develop their proposal. Proposals should only be requested when the commissioning agency/organization is prepared to consider the proposal as a conceptual approach to the project and not the final design. All proposal materials should be returned to those artists not selected for the project, and the authority representing the commissioning agency/organization should assume that all ideas presented for the project, including copyright, belong to the artist. For some projects, it may be preferable to select finalists for interview before selecting one artist to recommend to the Commission to seek a full proposal, or the panel may make a direct selection of an artist based on the panelists’ ranking of the applicants. Select Call: For small projects (under $25,000) the Commission may solicit proposals from a select group of artists without public advertisement. The selection sub-committee will review these submissions and make a recommendation to the Commission. Direct Call: For projects will budgets below $10,000 or for when the artist is, for some specified reason, the sole provider of the artwork, the Commission may make a direct call. Examples of sole source provider would be if, for instance, there is a need to repair, restore or expand that particular artist’s artwork, or if the project calls for a media or approach for which there are no other qualified practitioners within a reasonable geographic area. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) Artist or Community-Initiated Projects: The Commission may consider funding for Artist-Initiated or Community-Initiated projects (for which the artist has already been selected) in addition to Commission-Initiated projects. Such projects will be evaluated on an annual basis so that proposals may be considered on a competitive basis. Funding such projects is entirely at the Commission’s discretion and based on available funds and funding priorities. As per the Commission’s authority, all proposals for art on City property must be approved by the Commission, regardless of whether or not City funding is awarded. Purchases: The Commission may request the submission of pre-existing artwork for consideration for purchase for display in public sites. For such purchases, the Commission will issue an RFP, which will describe the criteria for the artwork and range of purchase price. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: All submissions must include evidence of previous work and credentials but should not include a a specific project proposal (except in the case for of artist initiated proposals). Calls for entries must be sufficiently detailed to permit artists to determine if their work is appropriate for the project 15 under consideration. All solicitations must state that entry into the selection process constitutes an agreement to all conditions set forth during the process, and that entry constitutes permission for the Commission to photograph or scan any accepted work, photo or slide for use in promotional materials, websites, films, television programs, videos or archival records produced by the City. At any time during the selection process, the Commission may request to see the original work (if it exists at the time). Every acquisition carries with it an explicit responsibility that it be displayed, maintained, preserved and documented. This is a permanent, ongoing commitment unless otherwise specified. Artwork will be selected based on: 1. Quality of the work’s construction; 2. Aesthetic merit and originality of the work; 3. Benefit to the City’s public art collection; 4. Appropriateness of the work’s scale, materials and content for the proposed site; 5. Financial considerations, including sources of funding and maintenance costs; 6. Susceptibility to damage, vandalism, or theft; 7. Potential for public endangerment; 8. Technical feasibility; 9. Timeline for acceptance of the work; 10. Donor restrictions; 11. Availability of the proposed site; 12. Suitability of an available site. DEPARTMENT INPUT Whether working to select artwork for a designated site or selecting a site for an already acquired artwork, the Commission strives to get input from relevant City departments. Relevant departments will typically be either a department receiving artwork for its building/grounds or a department whose general responsibilities will be materially impacted by the placement of artwork at a particular site. The Commission and/or staff will contact the director of a relevant department(s) to discuss potential sites and will invite the director to serve on any formal selection committee. The Commission encourages participation by the relevant department director. Selection processes are determined by the Commission and vary by project. The Commission and/or staff will ask the director of the relevant department to provide any concerns they have concerning the sites and/or their impact on department operations before a selection process begins 16 DONATION POLICY The City of Brookings subscribes to a policy of selective acquisition of art with preference for works of art that are of significant artistic merit, meet the city’s collection guidelines, and are of relevance to the city’s history, culture and collection priorities. Care and discernment are exercised in acquiring artworks because of limitations of staffing and finances to manage the public art collection and the desire to collect significant art of high quality. Donations are an important part of the City of Brookings’ art collection. The city has limited funds for administration, protection and maintenance. Likewise, there are a limited number of suitable municipal sites appropriate for the installation of artwork (see opportunities map). To ensure the quality of the collection, the Commission uses the guidance in this policy to decide whether a proposed donation is appropriate for addition to the City’s collection. The Commission accepts only those works that will, in its discretion, further the goals of the Public Art Guidelines. The Commission requests individuals or entities interested in donating artwork must follow the City’s donation proposal process. Individuals or corporations interested in donating a work of art must complete an official donation application and submit it to the Brookings City Clerk. The donation proposal form is available on the City website. Funds to maintain artworks in the City’s collection are limited. Therefore, when accepting a gift into the City’s collection, the Commission may require the donor sign a maintenance agreement or establish a maintenance endowment to ensure an adequate quality of care for the artwork. It is unlikely that the Brookings Public Arts Commission will consider any donation that requires immediate or extensive maintenance. The Commission reviews gifts during their meetings, which are announced publicly on the City website. After review, the Commission may choose to accept or decline a gift, or to table an offer. COLLECTIONS MAINTENANCE POLICY INVENTORY BACKGROUND The Commission will develop an inventory of the public art program collection in Brookings. A copy of the public artworks inventory will be updated annually and made available on the City website. PROCESS Information regarding newly acquired artworks should be entered into the inventory and database by the Commission as the artworks are installed. The inventory should be structured and managed, so as to be a resource to community residents and visitors seeking to view Brookings’ public art collection. Current information is included as an addendum. 17 Ideally, the following information will be recorded in the inventory and database: 1. Title of the artwork 2. Medium 3. Dimensions 4. Photograph(s) 5. Value, if available 6. Artist 7. Location 8. Year created 9. Year acquired 10. Donor, if donated 11. Maintenance/conservation instructions MAINTENANCE POLICY BACKGROUND The goal of the policy is to maintain the City’s collection of publicly owned artwork to ensure Brookings citizens’ long-term enjoyment of the collection. The Public Art Maintenance Policy provides the documentation, preservation and maintenance processes, which will support this goal. The Public Art Maintenance Policy will be implemented on a piece-specific basis that recognizes the value of each work of art in the collection. Documentation includes, but is not limited to, periodic condition reports, records of actual maintenance performed and an assessment of those efforts, photographs, artist’s maintenance recommendation, methods and materials information, potential problems with the work, finishes information (e.g., painter’s name; when, where, what, and how the piece was finished), quality of materials used, installation information, warranties and professional and other knowledgeable opinions regarding preservation and maintenance. The documentation may also include the artist’s resume, artwork history, where the work has been exhibited, and a personal interview with the artist. Preservation includes placement, installation, security, regularly scheduled maintenance and emergency repairs (with consideration of the natural process of aging). Maintenance will be performed according to a scheduled piece-specific plan to clean, repair, and preserve each piece in the public collection. This plan will include measures to assess the ongoing effectiveness of preservation. PROCESS Documentation. The initial documentation will occur before a piece is accepted into the City collection. A standardized form will be used for this purpose. The Commission will identify appropriate City departments and staff, outside contractors, service people and experts to review this documentation. 18 Documentation will reside in the official City records. The Commission will be responsible for creating and maintaining the documentation. The Commission will use the projected cost of maintenance as one consideration in its final determination of acceptance and placement. Although documentation and maintenance recommendations alone will not be used to specifically exclude artwork from the City collection, the recommendation may play a role in that final determination. Maintenance and Conservation Documentation: When an artwork is accepted into the City collection, an initial level of maintenance and a maintenance schedule will be established for it. The documentation will include a standard for regular maintenance (e.g., timing, type of maintenance) and will identify any maintenance issues that may require special attention. Each medium will require knowledgeable people to develop maintenance criteria. In addition, the maintenance criteria may include future historic and aesthetic considerations for each piece. The maintenance documentation may be reviewed and revised as needed with the artist’s input and permission. Annually, the Commission will initiate an inspection and condition report. Paid professional condition appraisers/conservators and/or knowledgeable volunteers, craftspeople or industry experts will perform the inspection of each piece. The inspection and condition report will become part of the permanent documentation of the specific piece and will be filed with the official records of the City. Paid professionals and/or trained City staff will perform regular maintenance according to the maintenance schedule and condition report for each specific piece annually. The Commission will initiate and coordinate the regular maintenance activities. Emergency Maintenance or Repair. The Commission will be notified of the need for emergency repair before any work is done. Paid professionals and/or trained City staff will perform emergency maintenance or repair on a timely basis. Policy Implementation. Designated City staff and a sub-committee of the Commission will implement and monitor the Public Art Maintenance Policy and will report to the Commission annually, or more often if needed, on the status of art work maintenance. City staff will oversee the quality control, evaluation and corrective maintenance actions carried out by this policy. Funding. Funding for maintenance will be established through a budget developed by the Commission and presented to the Commission each November. Funds will come from the Brookings Public Art Fund. Maintenance funding will take precedence over art purchases. Contract Services. Contracts with paid professionals/craftspeople will follow established City guidelines and will be handled through the appropriate City department. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICY BACKGROUND This policy is to provide visual arts planners with general guidelines to consider when developing installations that impact the public right-of-way (PROW). The goal of this collaborative experience is to support the maintenance and growth of the public and private art collections within the City of Brookings and to enhance our community’s quality of life. 19 STANDARDS The City of Brookings utilizes the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) when determining uses, signage, visual sightline requirements, and other matters that impact the PROW. The MUTCD is nationally accepted as the primary standard for these requirements. INSTALLATIONS ADJOINING THE PROW When considering installations along the PROW, the following factors shall be considered in making a determination about a particular installation. 1. ADA requirements: For example: does the installation impact the egress of a person with disabilities; 2. Impact on flow of pedestrians, bicycles, or traffic: For example: does the installation cause undue interruption of the flow of individuals on a sidewalk or cross walk; 3. Safety impacts; and 4. Maintenance requirements that may be created by the installation. INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE PROW When considering installations in the PROW, the following factors shall be considered in making a determination about a particular installation. 1. ADA compliance 2. Impact on flow of pedestrians, bicycles, or traffic 3. Safety impacts a. Does the installation cause undue distraction for drivers, so that vehicles are more likely to cause accidents from slowing? b. Does the installation cause a blockage of sightlines such that safety for drivers, pedestrians or cyclists is compromised? i. These sightlines will be different in each installation, so size may be a factor at certain locations. For example, in an installation at a traditional intersection location close to the sightlines at the corners may create a significant hazard; or within a roundabout, installations that create blind spots for drivers related to pedestrians will create a significant hazard. ii. The height of installations is not generally an issue except when a foundation structure is required that may limit visibility for pedestrians in wheelchairs or may cause drivers to “rubber neck” for better viewing. c. In installations that are within the PROW, project planners must be sensitive to pieces that may draw pedestrians into the traffic flow for viewing. In roundabout situations, this is a critical factor as a round-about is developed to keep speeds relatively high and do not have clear locations for drivers to stop. Generally, roundabout islands are not designed in such a manner as to accommodate pedestrian traffic. If a piece is designed into a roundabout prior to construction, it may be possible to create and place design elements that can accommodate these issues. It is also recommended that recognition for pieces (artist signatures, piece descriptions, etc.) be placed outside of the roundabouts’ flow of traffic versus on the island itself. 4. Maintenance requirements that may be created by the installation. 20 COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS In cases where the Commission is seeking to locate a piece adjoining the PROW or within the PROW, prior to final selection, the City Engineering Department requests a sketch drawing with estimated measurements be provided. The earlier in the process that detailed information can be provided, the better staff will be able to identify potential issues. Appropriate City staff will review the particular piece for the factors noted above. If the department has particular issues with one or several factors, the City Engineer will provide a detailed description of the issues to the Commission with recommendations concerning possible adjustments that may remedy the noted issues. POST-INSTALLATION If an issue arises, the City Engineering Department and the Commission will work collaboratively to develop a post-installation monitoring plan for traffic flow, accident data, and other factors to determine if future alterations to the installation are necessary. If site alterations are identified, staff will work with the Commission to develop possible remedies to alleviate the noted impacts. DEACCESSIONING POLICY BACKGROUND Deaccessioning is a procedure for withdrawing the display of a work of art from the City of Brookings’ public collection. As part of the ongoing evaluation of the collection, the Commission will review the Permanent Collection when deemed appropriate. Works of art that came into the City collection prior to adoption of this policy will be subject to this deaccessioning procedure. The Commission is responsible for deciding whether any piece(s) should be deaccessioned. CRITERIA Deaccession is the procedure for the permanent removal of a work from the City’s collection. An artwork may only be considered for deaccession for these reasons: 1. It has deteriorated or has been damaged such that restoration is impractical, infeasible, or would render the work false; 2. It no longer exists due to theft, accident or natural disaster; 3. It requires excessive maintenance or is found to be of inferior workmanship; 4. It is demonstrated to be fraudulent, not authentic or in violation of copyright law; 5. It endangers public safety; 6. Its site has experienced significant changes that prevent its continual display and no suitable replacement site is available; 7. Its security cannot be reasonably guaranteed; 8. It is not regularly on display, with no plans for its future display; or 9. It has been determined to be significantly incompatible or inferior in the context of the collection. Artwork may only be removed from the City’s collection through deaccession after careful and impartial evaluation of the artwork within the context of the City’s collection by the Commission. The deaccession evaluation must include: 21 1. A good faith effort to inform the artist or the artist’s estate that the artwork is being considered for deaccession; 2. A review of all pertinent accession documentation, including a review of legal documents by the City Attorney; 3. A written recommendation on deaccession by an independent art professional such as a curator, conservator, historian or architect; and 4. A review of any pertinent written correspondence, media coverage, and other evidence of public opinion. If the Commission deems deaccession appropriate, it will submit a formal recommendation, including a written statement of findings to the City Manager. If the City Manager decides that deaccession is appropriate, the artwork will be disposed as follows: 1. The artist or estate of the artist will be given first option to acquire the work through purchase, exchange, or other terms as determined by the Commission; 2. The artwork may be sold in accordance with all relevant laws governing surplus public property and all resulting proceeds will be allocated to the Public Art Fund; 3. The artwork may be loaned to a gallery, museum or similar institution; or 4. The artwork may be donated to a gallery, museum or similar institution. The City is responsible for all costs associated with the removal or relocation of the artwork unless another person or entity agrees to assume these costs. Any proceeds from the sale of public art belongs to the Public Art Fund. A record of deaccessioned artwork will be kept with the documentation of the City’s collection. ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, OR DESTRUCTION OF ARTWORK: It is the primary responsibility of the Commission to preserve and protect the art collections under its management for the City of Brookings. However, under certain conditions, and in accordance with the constraints of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (17 U.S.C. 106A and 113 (d), known as VARA, or in the case where the Artist has waived their rights under CAPA and VARA, in accordance with the City’s contractual agreement with the artist, the Commission may authorize actions that would alter, modify or destroy an artwork. CONDITIONS: Removal and disposal, destruction, alteration or modification of an artwork may be considered under the following circumstances: The work has faults of design or workmanship, or is damaged so that repair or remedy is impractical, infeasible or is an unjustifiable allocation of resources. The work poses a threat to public safety, or in some other way poses a potential liability for the City. In the event that the condition of the artwork represents an imminent safety hazard, and cannot be removed without risk of damage or destruction, the Commission will proceed in accordance with the provisions specified under “Emergency Removal.” 22 The Commission deems it necessary in order for the City to exercise its responsibilities in regard to public works and improvements, or in furtherance of the City’s operations, or for any other good cause. OPTIONS: If, for any of the above reasons, the City finds it necessary to pursue plans that would modify, remove, destroy or in any way alter an artwork, and the Commission approves such action, then the Commission shall make a reasonable effort to notify the artist by certified mail of the City’s intent, and outline possible options, which include, but are not limited to the following: Transfer of Title to the Artist: The artist will be given the first option of having the title to the artwork transferred to them. If the artist elects to pursue title transfer, they are responsible for the object’s removal and all associated costs. Disclaim Authorship: In the case where the City contemplates action which would compromise the integrity of the artwork, the artist shall be given the opportunity to disclaim authorship and request that their name not be used in connection with the given work. Alteration, Modification or Destruction: If alteration, modification, or destruction of an artwork protected under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 is contemplated, the Commission must secure a written waiver of the artist’s rights under this section. In the case of an emergency removal that may result in destruction or irreparable damage, the City Manager will act in accordance with the advice of the City Attorney. OPPORTUNITIES & PARTNERS OPPORTUNITIES MAP The Commission will initiate the development of an inventory of public property upon which public artworks may be located within the City of Brookings. A copy of the Public Art Opportunities Map will be made available on the City website. Information regarding public property on which public artworks may be located should be entered onto the Public Art Opportunities Map by the Commission as potential locations are identified. The map should be structured and managed so as to be a resource to the community as well as groups or individuals wishing to place artworks on public property. INTEGRATION In addition to its responsibilities of acquiring and maintaining public art, the Commission is a resource for the City of Brookings. Other City departments as well as the Brookings City Council are encouraged to seek input from the Brookings Public Arts Commission to integrate the arts throughout the City, in its building projects and in the City’s master plan. Opportunities for input could include, but are not limited to: 1. Construction and maintenance of streets, boulevards and public right of ways 2. Construction of bike lanes and bike parking 23 3. Beautification of common items such as electric boxes, sidewalks, street signs, etc. 4. Public parks and spaces 5. Other building projects that may provide opportunities for public art including alleys, walls and underutilized spaces 6. Integrate public art opportunities in the City’s 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP The successful creation and execution of a strategy for public art in Brookings, South Dakota requires a collaborative network of public and private partnerships. The City alone does not have the staff or resources to acquire an extensive inventory of public art. The private sector alone cannot place art on public or City property. Together, the public and private sectors can translate the community vision of supporting the creative class and high quality of life in Brookings into a systematic program for the selection, acquisition and display of public art, including pieces on City property. No work of art financed or installed either wholly or in part with City funds or with grants procured by the City shall be installed on privately owned property without a written agreement between the Commission, acting on behalf of the City and the private property owner. The City shall specify the proprietary interests in the work of art and specify other provisions deemed necessary or desirable by the City Attorney. In addition, such written agreement shall specify that the owner of said private property shall assure: 1. That the installation of the work of art will be done in a manner which will protect the work of art and the public; 2. That the work of art will be maintained in good condition; and 3. That insurance and indemnification will be provided as is appropriate. OWNERSHIP IN A PARTNERSHIP It is anticipated that most of the public artworks displayed on municipal property or public art easements will be either owned by the City of Brookings, private foundations, charitable organizations, individuals, or displayed on municipal property through a license agreement. In some instances, privately owned artworks suitable for display on public property may be secured through a loan agreement. Public artwork is to be identified with a plaque or marker identifying the City (e.g., “City of Brookings Public Art Collection”) the artist's name, title of the work, and year created. The plaque or marker may include the name(s) of the donor. Corporate script or logos are not permitted. MONETARY PARTNERSHIP With these goals in mind, several mechanisms of public and private funding should be considered. Financial contributions and gifts by corporations, private individuals and foundations can leverage limited public dollars. Regardless of the source, it is important to know what constitutes usual and customary expenditures for public art projects. The following items represent the types of expenditures generally associated with the commissioning and placement of public artwork. The following are representative of expenditures to be considered: 24 1. Cost of actual artwork. 2. Artist and artwork selection related expenses, including proposal and project related honoraria. 3. Documentation and public education materials. 4. Pre-design, design, planning and service contracts. 5. Expenses for technical assistance provided by architects or engineers. 6. A designated fund for project costs, maintenance, restoration and conservation. 7. Site preparation. With these considerations in mind, a combination of public and private investments as described above will allow the City of Brookings to develop a robust public art collection that will enhance its environment for generations to come. Donors may contribute money to acquire, install and/or maintain art. Gifts should be directed to the City of Brookings - Public Art Fund. The City of Brookings serves as the entity that collects, controls and administers the investment of the contributed financial resources in public art. Donations from the private sector or grants from the private or public sector shall be encouraged as a means to broaden the existing program potential. These funds shall be maintained in a separate fund for the public art program. City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2019-0288,Version:1 Disabilities Awareness Day Proclamation - July 26, 2019 Summary: Mark Sternhagen, Chair, Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities, will be accepting the Proclamation. Attachments: Proclamation City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Mayoral Proclamation City of Brookings, South Dakota WHEREAS,individuals whose disabilities occur during their developmental years frequently have severe disabilities that are likely to continue indefinitely; and, WHEREAS,disability is a natural part of the human experience that does not diminish the right of individuals with disabilities to enjoy the opportunity to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make choices, contribute to society, and experience full integration and inclusion in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream with necessary services and supports; and, WHEREAS,family members, friends, and members of the community can play an important role in enhancing the lives of individuals with disabilities, especially when the family and community are provided with necessary services and supports; and WHEREAS,the goals of the nation, state and community properly include the goal of providing individuals with disabilities with the opportunities and support to achieve full integration and inclusion in society, in an individualized manner, consistent with unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, and capabilities of each individual; and WHEREAS,through increased community, state and national awareness of programs and activities, the public will better understand the potential and needs of individuals with disabilities. NOW THEREFORE, I KEITH W. CORBETT, Mayor of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, do hereby proclaim July 26, 2019, as Disabilities Awareness Day and call upon the people of Brookings to join their fellow citizens and community organizations in recognizing this special observance. Keith W. Corbett, Mayor City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ID 2019-0278,Version:1 Public Hearing and Action on a Temporary Alcohol Application from the Brookings Cubs Baseball Group for a temporary alcohol license to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota for the Brookings Cubs Baseball Games to be held on July 12, 18, 26, and August 9, 10, 11, 2019 at Bob Shelden Field, 530 Elm Avenue. Summary: Brookings Cubs Baseball Group has applied for a temporary alcohol license to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota for the Brookings Cubs Baseball Games to be held on July 12, 18, 26, and August 9, 10, 11, 2019 at Bob Shelden Field, 530 Elm Avenue. All temporary alcohol licenses must be approved by the City Council through use of a public hearing. All documents have been filed with the City pertaining to insurance and other licensing requirements. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Attachments: Memo Legal Notice City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From:Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk Council Meeting:July 9, 2019 Subject:Temporary Alcohol Application Brookings Cubs Baseball Group Person(s) Presenting: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk Summary: The Brookings Cubs Baseball Group has applied for a Temporary Alcohol License for a Brookings Cubs Baseball Games to be held on July 12, 18, 26, and August 9, 10, 11, 2019 at Bob Shelden Field, 530 Elm Avenue. Background: All temporary alcohol licenses must be approved by the City Council through use of a public hearing. All documents have been filed with the City pertaining to insurance and other licensing requirements. Legal Consideration: None. Financial Consideration: As per Resolution 15-066, a Resolution establishing the License Fees for the Issuance of Special Alcoholic Beverage Licenses in the City of Brookings, there will be a fee assessed at $50 per event date. Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve as presented 2. Approve with recommended adjustments 3. Deny Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Action Requested: Approval of the Temporary Alcohol Licenses. Supporting Documentation: 1. Legal Notice Public Hearing Sale of Alcoholic Beverages NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Brookings City Council, Brookings, South Dakota, will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 9, 2019, in the Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street, to consider a Temporary Alcohol License Application from the Brookings Cubs Baseball Group, to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota, on July 12, 18, 26, and August 9, 10, 11, 2019 for Brookings Cubs Baseball Games to be held at Bob Shelden Field, 530 Elm Avenue. At which time and place all persons interested will be given a full, fair and complete hearing thereon. Dated at Brookings, South Dakota, this 1st day of July, 2019. Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk Published time(s) at an approximate cost: $. City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:RES 19-043,Version:1 Public Hearing and Action on Resolution 19-043, a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks in the City of Brookings at the Expense of Abutting property owners (2019-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project). Summary: This project is the annual concrete project and entails construction of miscellaneous concrete work including homeowner trip hazards that were not repaired in the 2018 sidewalk area and property owners in the 2019 sidewalk area who volunteered to be in the project. This resolution is the first step in starting the assessment project for the sidewalk repairs. The City mailed letters to the property owners giving them the option of repairing the sidewalks themselves or to be added to the City repair project. The properties are shown on the attached list. Each property owner was mailed a letter describing the contract prices and a notice of this public hearing. The contractor will start work after this resolution is approved. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Attachments: Memo Resolution Sidewalk List Map City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From:Jackie Lanning, City Engineer Council Meeting:July 9, 2019 Subject:Public Hearing and Action on Resolution 19-043, a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks in the City of Brookings at the Expense of the Abutting Property Owners (2019-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project). Person(s) Responsible: Jackie Lanning, City Engineer Summary: This resolution will authorize the City of Brookings to proceed with the sidewalk repairs for the concrete maintenance project, which will be assessed to the respective property owners. Background: This project is the annual concrete project and entails construction of miscellaneous concrete work including curb and gutter repair, fillets, valley gutters, curb ramps, and sidewalk. This project also includes homeowner trip hazards that were not repaired in the 2018 sidewalk area, which is north of 6th Street and west of Medary Avenue, and property owners in the 2019 sidewalk area who volunteered to be in the project, which is between 6th Street and 8th Street South and west of Medary Avenue. The project was awarded to Clark Drew Construction Inc. This resolution is the first step in starting the assessment project for the sidewalk repairs. Discussion: The City mailed letters to the property owners giving them the option of repairing the sidewalks themselves or to be added to the City repair project. The properties are shown on the attached list. The contract prices for the project, including the 6% engineering and administration fee are: Remove and Install 4” thick Sidewalk: $10.36 per square foot Adjust Water Valve (if needed): $152.64 per each Each property owner was mailed a notice of this public hearing by receipt certified mail. This resolution will authorize the City’s contractor to proceed with construction of the sidewalk assessment project. Legal Consideration: None. Financial Consideration: The City will levy the assessment costs upon completion of the project. The final costs will be based upon actual as-constructed quantities. Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve as presented 2. Deny Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution as presented. Action Requested: Approval of the resolution. Supporting Documentation: 1. Resolution 2. Sidewalk List 3. Map Resolution 19-043 Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks in the City of Brookings at the Expense of Abutting Property Owners 2019-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that sidewalk repairs or installation is necessary abutting the parcels and lots of land in the City described in the Notice to Property Owners attached to this Resolution and marked as 2019-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project. 2. Such sidewalks shall be installed to the width and of the materials prescribed by Chapter 74, “Streets, Sidewalks and other Public Places” and Article V. “Sidewalks”, and to the grade and in accordance with the Plans and Specifications prepared in the office of the City Engineer. 3. The method of apportionment of benefits is as follows: such assessments, unless paid within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing of a statement of account by the City, shall be collected by the City in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Section 9-43-102, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967, as amended, with interest of 10% on the unpaid balance. Assessments amounting to less than $300.00 shall be paid in one payment. 4. The City has caused a copy of the Resolution and a Notice to Property Owners to be mailed to each property owner by certified mail. Passed and approved this 9th day of July, 2019. CITY OF BROOKINGS Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk House Number Sidewalk Address Names Mailing Address City-State 103 9th St TK Service & Rentals LLC 1727 Pinehurst Dr Brookings, SD 57006 134 Trail Ridge Rd Wade & Laura Schwartz 134 Trail Ridge Rd Brookings, SD 57006 200 Harvey Dunn St David Kneip 1218 6th St Brookings, SD 57006 206 Harvey Dunn St Christopher Bauman 405 State Ave Brookings, SD 57006 223 5th Ave S Rudolph Curtler 2661 Cougar Path NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 301 Division Ave Advance 301 Division Ave Brookings, SD 57006 412 Main Ave S Mervin & Geraldine Anderson 412 Main Ave S Brookings, SD 57006 612 5th Ave Zeno Wicks & Michael Kjellsen PO Box 342 Brookings, SD 57006 618 6th Ave TB Partnership LLC 611 6th St Brookings, SD 57006 620 8th St Luke Perkins 620 8th St Brookings, SD 57006 621 6th St R&B Properties 3721 16th Ave W Brookings, SD 57006 625 6th Ave S Adam & Cassie Juba 625 6th Ave S Brookings, SD 57006 628 6th Ave S Rhonda Rogers 2900 Kensington St Unit 4 Sioux Falls, SD 57108 701 Harvey Dunn St Gatlin & Katlee Johnson 701 Harvey Dunn St Brookings, SD 57006 703 9th St Robert Geary 32750 480th Ave Elk Point, SD 57025 704 6th Ave Timothy Buterbaugh 704 6th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 704 11th St Aurora Venture Partnership 6721 E Dugout Ln Sioux Falls, SD 57110 711 6th Ave Darin & Tammy Dobrenski 1513 King Arthur Cir Brookings, SD 57006 715 6th Ave Joseph Thvedt & Tami Thomas 715 6th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 715 9th St Swedlund Enterprises Inc 2301 16th Ave W Brookings, SD 57006 718 3rd St S Steven & Brenda Torino 46796 220th St Brookings, SD 57006 718 5th Ave Susan Helsper 718 5th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 720 8th Ave KB Properties LLC 3066 W Donahue Dr Sioux Falls, SD 57108 720 9th St Andrew & Trina Turner 720 9th St Brookings, SD 57006 722 8th St Todd Broschat 722 8th St Brookings, SD 57006 723 9th Ave TB Partnership LLC 611 6th St Brookings, SD 57006 725 6th St Rief Properties LLC 1339 Wahpeton Pass Brookings, SD 57006 725 9th St Russel & Mary Clement 725 9th St Brookings, SD 57006 728 Main Ave Kyle Fergen 724 Main Ave Brookings, SD 57006 808 Prairie View Dr Advance Foundation 301 Division Ave Brookings, SD 57006 816 9th Ave Robert & Cindy Swinson 816 9th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 823 9th Ave Pintail Properties LLC PO Box 500 Brookings, SD 57006 828 6th Ave Rick & Jean Stoebner 828 6th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 829 7th Ave JKS Rentals LLC 1118 Forest St Brookings, SD 57006 905 5th St S Advance 301 Division Ave Brookings, SD 57006 909 5th St S Marlys Thompson Trust 1628 Cypress Point Cir Brookings, SD 57006 917 7th Ave Robert Geary 32750 480th Ave Elk Point, SD 57025 919 Brooklawn Dr Arthur & Steve Gilley PO Box 25279 Colorado Springs, CO 80936 928 7th Ave Daniel & Megan Beifeldt 928 7th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1005 3rd Ave Chad Taecker 1003 3rd Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1029 Circle Dr Joseph & Beverly Cassady 1029 Circle Dr Brookings, SD 57006 1034 3rd Ave John Moriarty Living Trust 224 8th St Brookings, SD 57006 1038 6th Ave Jennifer Beller 1038 6th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1041 9th Ave James & Carol Resmen 48513 188th St Brandt, SD 57218 1043 6th Ave John Kratochvil 421 12th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1044 6th Ave Tyler & Bradley Buttke 1044 6th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1046 8th Ave David Froehlich 1032 8th Ave Brookings, SD 57006 1047 Main Ave Adee Properties LTD Partner PO Box 368 Bruce, SD 57220 1049 7th Ave Dorothy Ishol 3305 Sunnyview Dr Brookings, SD 57006 1049 8th Ave Scott & Carrie Steinlicht 316 Maple Dr Brookings, SD 57006 1060 Circle Dr Ronald Greve PO Box 825 Brookings, SD 57006 1613 Buffalo Trl Chad Splettstoeszer 1613 Buffalo Trl Brookings, SD 57006 H O N O R DR CHRISTINE CIR SYLVAN CIRW IN D ERM ERE 1 7 T H S T S CASTLEWOOD DR 14TH AVE S10T H ST S R E MI N G T O NPINE R IDGE RDDEER LN16TH AVE15TH AVE12TH AVESTADIUM RDVINE S T3RD S T S 4TH ST S 1 3TH ST Y ELLOWS TONE DR 1ST S T 1ST ST S ARROWHEAD PASS 3 RD S T 3 RD S T 6TH AVE ST E TON LN 4TH ST W CRYSTAL RI D G E RD YORKTOWN CIRU GILLEY AVE S11TH AVEW 2ND S T S RAILROAD ST THU N DER PAS S W TRAIL R ID G E RDBROOKLAWN DRPRAIRIE VIEW DR1 1 TH S T S 11TH ST S 11TH ST DIVISION AVEFRONT ST FRONT ST WAHPE T ON PASSTRAIL RIDGE CIR CAM E L OT DRWE S TM INSTER D RSQUIRE CTCAND LEWOOD LNWESTERN AVEWESTERN AVE9TH12TH ST S 1 2 TH ST S K ING ARTHU R CT POWDE R H O R N P ASSPAM ELA DR HERITAGE DRST W HUGHES AVEHENRY AVEHENRY AVE14TH AVEORCHARD DRCEDAR AVEBIRCH AVEASH AVE7TH ST 7 TH ST RAINBOW PKWY 1ST AVE SFOLSO M S T CAMPANILE AVECAMPANILE AVE9 TH ST 9TH ST 9TH ST STUDENT UNION LN N CAMPUS DR 5 T H S T S 5TH ST S TET O NH U N T E RS RIDGE R D2ND AVEMAIN AVEMAIN AVE8TH S T S YOSEMITE LN YO S EMITE LNMAIN AVE SMAIN AVE SMAIN AVE S10 TH S T W10TH ST WWILSON AVEWILSON AVEW F OLSO M S T INDIAN HILLS RD MMIT PASS 1 5 T H S T S 1 5TH S T S MEDARY AVE SRE G E N C Y C TR E G E N C Y CTW 8T H ST S 13TH AVE13TH AVE13TH AVEJACKRABBIT AVE1ST AVE5TH AVE2 N D ST 4 T H S T 4 T H ST FACULTY DRFMEDARY AVEMEDARY AVE7TH AVE7TH AVE3RD AVE6TH AVE6TH AVE8TH AVE9TH AVE9TH AVECIR CLE DRCIRCLE DRELM AVEHALF M O O N R D DEER P AS S SI OUX PASSTRAIL RIDGE RDMUSTANG PASS 16TH AVE S3RD AVE S2 N D ST SW U S H WY 1 4 TELLU R I D E L N 8TH AVE SBR OKEN BOW TRLWESTERN AVE St ex ttexttext t ex tt exttexttexttexttexttexttexttext t ext text texttextte xttext te x t te xttexttexttexttexttexttexttext 8TH S T 8 T H ST 8 TH S T 6TH ST OVERLOOCOPPER MOUNTAIN RDCOLLEGE AVE7TH AVE S City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ORD 19-006,Version:2 Second Reading and Action on Ordinance 19-006, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Brookings Public Arts Commission. Summary: The proposed ordinance revision allows public art to be placed on publicly-owned properties. The proposed revision further clarifies the Public Art Commission’s role to provide recommendations to the City Manager or City Council on the addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of public art. Background: The City of Brookings established the Public Arts Commission in February 2016 with the passage of Ordinance 16-006. The role of the Public Arts Commission is: 1.To develop a unified public art strategy for the City of Brookings; 2.To advise the City Council and other community groups and agencies who are initiating a public art project concerning the proposed site, selection of a professional artist and commissioning of a public artwork; 3.To oversee the Public Art Fund; 4.To guide and monitor design development process through reviews at various stages to ensure artistic and design quality, integration with the site and relevance to the community; 5.To approve the final design prior to fabrication; and 6.To approve the final artwork, installation procedures, and maintenance plan prior to installation Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 19-006. Attachments: Memo Ordinance - Clean Ordinance - Marked City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From:Jacob Meshke, Assistant to the City Manager Council Meeting:June 25, 2019 / July 9, 2019 Subject:Ordinance 19-006, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to Brookings Public Arts Commission. Person(s) Presenting: Jacob Meshke, Assistant to the City Manager Summary: The proposed ordinance revision allows public art to be placed on publicly-owned properties. The proposed revision further clarifies the Public Art Commission’s role to provide recommendations to the City Manager or City Council on the addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of public art. Background: The City of Brookings established the Public Arts Commission in February 2016 with the passage of Ordinance 16-006. The role of the Public Arts Commission is: 1. To develop a unified public art strategy for the City of Brookings; 2. To advise the City Council and other community groups and agencies who are initiating a public art project concerning the proposed site, selection of a professional artist and commissioning of a public artwork; 3. To oversee the Public Art Fund; 4. To guide and monitor design development process through reviews at various stages to ensure artistic and design quality, integration with the site and relevance to the community; 5. To approve the final design prior to fabrication; and 6. To approve the final artwork, installation procedures, and maintenance plan prior to installation Discussion: City Staff worked with the Public Art Commission to clarify the ordinance to allow for public art on publicly-owned land and clarify the Public Art Commission’s role to provide recommendations to the City Manager or City Council on the addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of public art. Legal Consideration: None. Financial Consideration: None. Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve as presented 2. Approve with recommended adjustments 3. Deny Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 19-006. Action Requested: Approval of Ordinance 19-006 to allow for public art on publicly-owned land and clarify the Public Art Commission’s role to provide recommendations to the City Manager of City Council on the addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of public art. Supporting Documentation: Memo Ordinance – Clean Ordinance – Marked Ordinance 19-006 An Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to Brookings Public Arts Commission. Be It Ordained and Enacted by the City Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota, as follows: I. Chapter 2, Article V, Division 8. Brookings Public Arts Commission. That Section 2-258 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-258. – Powers and authority of commission. The powers and authority of the Brookings Public Arts Commission (BPAC) shall include, but are not limited to: a) The commission shall develop and recommend revisions to the Brookings public art guidelines, which shall include criteria for accepting donations or gifts, both of cash and tangible art, a method or methods for the selection of artists and public art projects and for the placement of public art projects. The city council shall have final approval of all Brookings public art policies and guidelines. b) The commission shall recommend to the City Manager and City Council proposed public art acquisitions and the placement, maintenance, relocation, and deaccessioning of artwork acquired through the public art program. c) The commission shall have the custody and care of all works of art owned by the city and under the control of any department of the city. The term "work of art" shall apply to and include all paintings, mural decorations, statues, bas-reliefs, sculptures, monuments, fountains, arches, ornamental gateways and other structures of a permanent character intended for ornament or commemoration. d) No work of art shall become the property of the city by purchase, gift or otherwise, until it, or a design or model thereof, and a proposed plan for it shall have been approved by the commission. e) No work of art shall be erected or placed in, over or upon, or allowed to extend in, over or upon any street, avenue, square, park or other property belonging to the city without approval of the commission in consultation with appropriate city departments. The commission may recommend the removal, relocation or alteration of any existing work of art owned by the city, and no such work of art shall be removed, relocated or altered without such recommendation and approval. The addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of any work of art shall be approved by the city manager or the city manager’s designee. f) The commission shall study, prepare recommendations and report upon the design or proposed design of any municipal building, bridge, approach, fence or other structure erected or to be erected upon land belonging to the city, and upon the design or proposed design of any arch, bridge, structure or approach which is the property of any person, firm or corporation, and extends in, over or upon any street, avenue, highway, park or public place. g) The commission shall recommend the purchase or commissioning of public art projects, including the design, execution and/or placement of such public art, with approval of expenditures by the City Manager and City Council consistent with Section 2-115 of this Chapter. h) The commission shall consult with the department responsible for a particular construction project regarding the design, execution and/or possible placement of a public art project in connection with such construction project. i) The commission shall review the inventory of public art, including assessing the status of maintenance, compile a list of potential sites for public art projects, and prepare recommendations as to location, relocation, and deaccessioning of public art. j) The commission may also initiate public forums when appropriate to determine thematic approaches and location options for public art. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. First Reading: June 25, 2019 Second Reading: July 9, 2019 Published: July 12, 2019 CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk Ordinance 19-006 An Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to Brookings Public Arts Commission. Be It Ordained and Enacted by the City Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota, as follows: I. Chapter 2, Article V, Division 8. Brookings Public Arts Commission. That Section 2-258 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-258. – Powers and authority of commission. The powers and authority of the Brookings Public Arts Commission (BPAC) shall include, but are not limited to: a) The commission shall develop and recommend revisions to the Brookings public art guidelines, which shall include criteria for accepting donations or gifts, both of cash and tangible art, a method or methods for the selection of artists and public art projects and for the placement of public art projects. The city council shall have final approval of all Brookings public art policies and guidelines. b) The commission shall be responsible for the public art program by directing the selection recommend to the City Manager and City Council proposed public art acquisitions and the placement, maintenance, relocation, and deaccessioning of artwork acquired through the public art program. and shall recommend revisions to the public art guidelines. c) The commission shall have the custody and care of all works of art owned by the city and under the control of any department of the city. The term "work of art" shall apply to and include all paintings, mural decorations, statues, bas-reliefs, sculptures, monuments, fountains, arches, ornamental gateways and other structures of a permanent character intended for ornament or commemoration. d) No work of art shall become the property of the city by purchase, gift or otherwise, until it, or a design or model thereof, and a proposed plan for it shall have been approved by the commission. e) No work of art shall be erected or placed in, over or upon, or allowed to extend in, over or upon any street, avenue, square, park or other property belonging to the city without approval of the commission in consultation with appropriate city departments. The commission may recommend order the removal, relocation or alteration of any existing work of art owned by the city, and no such work of art shall be removed, relocated or altered without such recommendation order and approval. The addition, removal, relocation, or alteration of any work of art shall be approved by the city manager or the city manager’s designee. f) The commission shall study, prepare recommendations and report upon the design or proposed design of any municipal building, bridge, approach, fence or other structure erected or to be erected upon land belonging to the city, and upon the design or proposed design of any arch, bridge, structure or approach which is the property of any person, firm or corporation, and extends in, over or upon any street, avenue, highway, park or public place. g) The commission shall recommend the purchase or commissioning of public art projects, or commission including the design, execution and/or placement of such public art projects, with approval of expenditures by the City Manager and City Council consistent with Section 2-115 of this Chapter. h) The commission shall consult with the department responsible for a particular construction project regarding the design, execution and/or possible placement of a public art project in connection with such construction project. i) The commission shall review the inventory of public art, including assessing the status of maintenance, compile a list of potential sites for public art projects, and prepare recommendations as to location, relocation, and deaccessioning of public art. j) The commission may also initiate public forums when appropriate to determine thematic approaches and location options for public art. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. First Reading: June 25, 2019 Second Reading: July 9, 2019 Published: July 12, 2019 CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:ORD 19-007,Version:2 Second Reading and Action on Ordinance 19-007, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Dedicated Public Art Fund. Summary: The proposed ordinance revision would allow the City Manager to approve Dedicated Public Art Fund expenditures less than $25,000 based on the recommendation of the Public Arts Commission. City Council would approve expenditures recommended by the Public Arts Commission which equal or exceed $25,000. The word local would be struck to allow for greater flexibility in advancing professional artists and expands the purpose of the fund to include public art-related activities. Staff recommends approval. Background: The City of Brookings established the Dedicated Public Art Fund in February 2016 with the passage of Ordinance 16-005. The purpose of the Dedicated Public Art Fund was to provide funding for the design, purchase, acquisition, installation and maintenance of public art for the City of Brookings. The Dedicated Public Art Fund receives its funding from one percent (1%) of annual capital expenditures from each revenue fund which is within the City Council’s budgetary authority and which has an appropriation for capital expenditures. The Brookings Public Arts Commission is charged with the duty to recommend policies and guidelines for the advancement of public art as well as recommend proposed expenditures from the Dedicated Public Art Fund. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 19-007. Attachments: Memo Ordinance - Clean Ordinance - Marked City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From:Jacob Meshke, Assistant to the City Manager Council Meeting:June 25, 2019 / July 9, 2019 Subject:Ordinance 19-007, an Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to Dedicated Public Art Fund. Person(s) Presenting: Jacob Meshke, Assistant to the City Manager Summary: The proposed ordinance revision would allow the City Manager to approve expenditures from the Dedicated Public Art Fund less than $25,000 based on the recommendation of the Public Arts Commission. City Council would approve expenditures recommended by the Public Arts Commission which equal or exceed $25,000. The word local would be struck to allow for greater flexibility in advancing professional artists and expands the purpose of the fund to include public art-related activities. Staff recommends approval. Background: The City of Brookings established the Dedicated Public Art Fund in February 2016 with the passage of Ordinance 16-005. The purpose of the Dedicated Public Art Fund was to provide funding for the design, purchase, acquisition, installation and maintenance of public art for the City of Brookings. The Dedicated Public Art Fund receives its funding from one percent (1%) of annual capital expenditures from each revenue fund which is within the City Council’s budgetary authority and which has an appropriation for capital expenditures. The Brookings Public Arts Commission is charged with the duty to recommend policies and guidelines for the advancement of public art as well as recommend proposed expenditures from the Dedicated Public Art Fund. Discussion: City Staff worked with the Public Arts Commission to provide more flexibility to the Commission in advancing public art in the community. Removing local from the ordinance would allow the Commission greater freedom in selecting professional artists. The addition of public art-related activities would provide the ability to promote art festivals, events, or other activities which align with public art purposes. Administrative approval of expenditures less than $25,000 would streamline smaller, public art initiatives while maintaining City Council oversight of larger, public art initiatives which equal or exceed $25,000. City Council also has approval and authority over public art policies and guidelines. Legal Consideration: None. Financial Consideration: None. Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Approve as presented 2. Approve with recommended adjustments 3. Deny Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 19-007. Action Requested: Approval of Ordinance 19-007 to remove the word local, expand the purpose to include other public art-related activities, allow administrative approval of public art projects less than $25,000, require City Council approval for public art projects which equal or exceed $25,000. Supporting Documentation: 1. Memo 2. Ordinance – Clean 3. Ordinance – Marked Ordinance 19-007 An Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Dedicated Public Art Fund of the City of Brookings. Be It Ordained and Enacted by the City Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota, as follows: I. Chapter 2, Article IV, Division 3. Dedicated Public Art Fund. That Section 2-112 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-112. – Findings. The city council finds that public art and design enhances the environment of the City of Brookings, enriches the lives of its citizens and improves the value of the city's public spaces and buildings. In addition, the presence of public art encourages the careers of professional artists and provides possible opportunities for their employment and career advancement. Moreover, it is the vision of the city council to support the creative class because a creative workforce is important for economic growth and a vibrant community. The council further finds that art can be more fully appreciated if it is publicly displayed as opposed to merely confined to the internal premises of galleries and museums. Finally, a dedicated funding source for an established program of public art enhances the reputation of the city and serves as a vehicle for attracting new businesses and talent to all sectors of the community. That Section 2-113 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-113. – Purpose. The purpose of the dedicated public art fund is to provide funding for the design, purchase, acquisition, installation and maintenance of public art as well as other public art-related activities for the City of Brookings. That Section 2-115 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-115. – Administration of the fund. In accordance with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54 (“GASB 54”), the dedicated public art fund shall be reported as part of the general fund for financial reporting purposes, but shall be maintained individually for accounting purposes and budgetary comparisons. A Brookings Public Arts Commission, which is charged with the duty to recommend policies and guidelines for the advancement of public art throughout the community, shall also recommend to the city manager proposed expenditures of the public art fund which are less than $25,000. The city council shall have final approval of all policies and guidelines recommended by the commission, and shall also approve proposed expenditures for public arts projects which equal or exceed $25,000. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. First Reading: June 25, 2019 Second Reading: July 9, 2019 Published: July 12, 2019 CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk Ordinance 19-007 An Ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, and pertaining to the Dedicated Public Art Fund of the City of Brookings. Be It Ordained and Enacted by the City Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota, as follows: I. Chapter 2, Article IV, Division 3. Dedicated Public Art Fund. That Section 2-112 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-112. – Findings. The city council finds that public art and design enhances the environment of the City of Brookings, enriches the lives of its citizens and improves the value of the city's public spaces and buildings. In addition, the presence of public art encourages the careers of local professional artists and provides possible opportunities for their employment and career advancement. Moreover, it is the vision of the city council to support the creative class because a creative workforce is important for economic growth and a vibrant community. The council further finds that art can be more fully appreciated if it is publicly displayed as opposed to merely confined to the internal premises of galleries and museums. Finally, a dedicated funding source for an established program of public art enhances the reputation of the city and serves as a vehicle for attracting new businesses and talent to all sectors of the community. That Section 2-113 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-113. – Purpose. The purpose of the dedicated public art fund is to provide funding for the design, purchase, acquisition, installation and maintenance of public art as well as other public art-related activities for the City of Brookings. That Section 2-115 shall be amended as follows: Sec. 2-115. – Administration of the fund. In accordance with Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54 (“GASB 54”), the dedicated public art fund shall be reported as part of the general fund for financial reporting purposes, but shall be maintained individually for accounting purposes and budgetary comparisons. A Brookings Public Arts Commission, which is charged with the duty to recommend policies and guidelines for the advancement of public art throughout the community, shall also recommend to the city council proposed expenditures of the to the city manager proposed expenditures of the dedicated public art fund which are less than $25,000 dedicated to the public art fund. The city council shall have final approval of all such policies and guidelines recommended by the commission, and shall also approve of proposed public expenditures for public arts projects which equal to or exceed $25,000. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. First Reading: June 25, 2019 Second Reading: July 9, 2019 Published: July 12, 2019 CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Keith W. Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:RES 19-055,Version:1 Action on Resolution 19-055, a Resolution Addressing Application of the International Building Code with Respect to the Proposed Detention Center Expansion by Brookings County. Summary: One of the considerations in the 11.1 historical review process is the determination whether a party undertaking a project is required to obtain a building permit. Based on guidance from the Attorney General’s office, it appears a building permit application initiates an 11.1 historical review procedure if the proposed construction impacts an historic structure. While Brookings County has not applied for a building permit, the City believes that City ordinances require building permits for construction projects similar to the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion. The City Attorney believes that the only entities exempt pursuant to law would be the U.S. Government and its agencies and the State of South Dakota and its agencies. The proposed Resolution, if approved, would affirm the City’s position that a building permit is required for the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion project, and would authorize the retention of legal counsel to enforce the City’s ordinance in this circumstance, if necessary. Recommendation: Approve the proposed Resolution, so that the City’s position is clearly stated and there is authorization to retain legal counsel to enforce the building code in this instance, if necessary. Attachments: Memo Resolution City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From: Steve Britzman, City Attorney Council Meeting: July 9, 2019 Subject: Brookings County Detention Center Expansion Historical Review/ Determination by City Council Whether the City of Brookings’ International Building Code Requires a Building Permit for the Proposed Expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center Person(s) Responsible: Steve Britzman, City Attorney Summary: One of the considerations in the 11.1 historical review process is the determination whether a party undertaking a project is required to obtain a building permit. Based on guidance from the Attorney General’s office, it appears a building permit application initiates an 11.1 historical review procedure if the proposed construction impacts an historic structure. While Brookings County has not applied for a building permit, the City believes that City ordinances require building permits for construction projects similar to the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion. The City Attorney believes that the only entities exempt pursuant to law would be the U.S. Government and its agencies and the State of South Dakota and its agencies. The proposed Resolution, if approved, would affirm the City’s position that a building permit is required for the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion project, and would authorize the retention of legal counsel to enforce the City’s ordinance in this circumstance, if necessary. Background: The City of Brookings’ Historic Preservation Commission initiated and conducted an 11.1 historical review of the proposed Brookings County Detention Center Project Expansion Project, and on July 31, 2018, submitted its Official comment to the South Dakota State Historical Society pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1. The South Dakota State Historical Society issued its recommendation on August 29, 2018, and concluded that the proposed Brookings County Detention Center Project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (see attached consultation report.) On November 6, 2018, the County of Brookings completed its own 11.1 review, and determined that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the construction of the Brookings County Detention Center Expansion in the manner and location as outlined in its project plans. Another Agenda item for the July 9th meeting includes proposed action to complete the City’s 11.1 review of the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion project. This Resolution, if approved, will do the following: 1. Clarify the City’s position concerning its building code requirements pertaining to the proposed Brookings County Detention Center expansion; a nd 2. Authorize legal counsel to enforce its building code, if necessary. Discussion: In connection with the City’s 11.1 historical review of the proposed County Detention Center expansion project, it also appears necessary for the City to express its position concerning whether its building permit requirements apply to the County of Brookings. If a building permit is required, it will, in the opinion of the City’s legal counsel, initiate a project within the scope of an 11.1 historical review. The City Attorney believes there are no specific exemptions in the city’s building code or other State law which would exempt the County from the City’s building permit requirements. Legal Consideration: Section R105 of the City’s International Building Code provides as follows: R105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. While City ordinance has several exemptions to the foregoing requirement, there are no applicable exemptions either for other political subdivisions, such as the County of Brookings, or exemptions for the type of construction proposed by the County of Brookings. Financial Consideration: None/Not Applicable, except that legal counsel, previously authorized by the City Council, would also be authorized to enforce the building permit requirements in this circumstance. Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Hold a Public Hearing, discuss the proposed Resolution and take no action; 2. Hold a Public Hearing, discuss the proposed Resolution, and by motion authorize the Resolution. Recommendation: Approve the proposed Resolution, so that the City’s position is clearly stated and there is authorization to retain legal counsel to enforce the building code in this instance, if necessary. Action Requested: Consider and approve the proposed Resolution. Supporting Documentation: 1. A Resolution Addressing Application of the International Building Code with Respect to the Proposed Detention Center Expansion by Brookings County. Resolution 19-055 A Resolution Addressing Application of the International Building Code with Respect to the Proposed Detention Center Expansion by Brookings County Whereas, the County of Brookings is proposing to construct an expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center in the City of Brookings upon the site of the current detention center; and Whereas, the County of Brookings has not applied for a building permit for the proposed construction and has expressed its position that a building permit is not required for this County construction project; and Whereas, the City of Brookings in 2015 adopted by ordinance a building code as published by the International Code Council to promote public safety and the general welfare; and Whereas, a building permit is required under the International Building Code for any project of the size and nature of the proposed expansion of the County Detention Center; and Whereas, the City of Bookings on the advice of counsel has determined that neither State law nor city ordinance provide an exception for a County building project to the City’s requirement that a building permit is required for new construction within the city limits of the City of Brookings; and Whereas, Brookings County has previously applied to the City of Brookings for a building permit in connection with renovation at the Brookings County Courthouse, and the City has previously issued a building permit for that project under a previous version of the International Building Code. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: (1) that by this Resolution the City of Brookings gives notice to Brookings County that its construction plans for the Brookings County Detention Center require a building permit before construction may begin; and (2) that the City authorizes the retention of outside legal counsel for the purpose of taking necessary legal action to enforce the City’s building code. Passed and approved on the 9th day of July, 2019. CITY OF BROOKINGS ATTEST:Keith W. Corbett, Mayor Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk City of Brookings Staff Report Brookings City & County Government Center, 520 Third Street Brookings, SD 57006 (605) 692-6281 phone (605) 692-6907 fax File #:RES 19-053,Version:1 Action on Resolution 19-053, a Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Approving / Disapproving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. Summary: The Agenda item for the City Council is the 11.1 historical review determination whether to approve or disapprove the proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current detention center. This determination will complete the City’s SDCL 1-19A-11.1 (hereafter sometimes referred to as “11.1 review”) historical review. A judicial determination will likely be necessary to resolve whether the County’s determination or a determination by the City as described herein is appropriate under SDCL 1-19A-11.1. Recommendation: Consider both proposed Resolutions, and modify these proposed Resolutions following consideration of public testimony and the facts and circumstances, and approve a Resolution which the City Council deems appropriate. Attachments: Memo Resolution - to approve Resolution - to reject a.Application b.City’s notification to SHPO or proposed project 111417 c.SHPO Request for Case Report 111617 d.Case Report Submittal e.HPCMinutes_2018_02_08 f.Case Report Addendum v2 g.HPC Minutes 2018_06_14 unapproved h.State of SD Attorney General Opinion 121713 i.National Register of Historic Places Courthouse Nomination 1976 j.HPC Official Comment 073118 k.SHPO Letter 8-29-2018 l.Brookings County Commission Resolution 18-44 City of Brookings Printed on 7/5/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Council Agenda Memo From: Steve Britzman, City Attorney Council Meeting: July 9, 2019 Subject: Brookings County Detention Center Expansion Historical Review/ Determination by City Council Whether to Approve or Disapprove the Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current Detention Center Person(s) Responsible: Steve Britzman, City Attorney Summary: The Agenda item for the City Council is the 11.1 historical review determination whether to approve or disapprove the proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current detention center. This determination will complete the City’s SDCL 1- 19A-11.1 (hereafter sometimes referred to as “11.1 review”) historical review. A judicial determination will likely be necessary to resolve whether the County’s determination or a determination by the City as described herein is appropriate under SDCL 1-19A-11.1. Background: The City of Brookings’ Historic Preservation Commission initiated and conducted an 11.1 historical review of the proposed Brookings County Detention Center Project Expansion Project, and on July 31, 2018, submitted its Official comment to the South Dakota State Historical Society pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1. The South Dakota State Historical Society issued its recommendation on August 29, 2018, and concluded that the proposed Brookings County Detention Center Project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (see attached consultation report.) On November 6, 2018, the County of Brookings completed its own 11.1 review, and determined that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the construction of the Brookings County Detention Center Expansion in the manner and location as outlined in its project plans. The completion of separate 11.1 reviews by both the City and the County does not appear to be contemplated by SDCL 1-19A-11.1. Significant efforts to resolve the procedural impasse with the County were pursued following the County’s November 6, 2018 action. These efforts did not result in a resolution of the issue. T he City Council has not yet completed its determination under the 11.1 review procedure initiated by the City. This Agenda Item is intended to complete the 11.1 historical review procedure. Discussion: Consistent with Brookings’ Ordinance 46-26 and South Dakota Codified Law 1-19A-11.1, it is appropriate for the City Council to discuss and consider the necessary action required to complete the City’s 11.1 review and resolve the procedural question of which entity, the City or the County, or the Governor, should issue a determination to complete the 11.1 review in a manner which is consistent with SDCL 1-19A-11.1. Because of the issues raised, it will likely require a judicial determination of the correct 11.1 review procedure to be utilized. Legal Consideration: Brookings Ordinance 46-26 provides as follows: Sec. 46-26. - Coordination with the planning commission, board of adjustment, board of appeals and city departments; comments to be given to state historic preservation office. (a) The planning commission, the board of adjustment, the community development director, city building official, and city departments shall, through the city manager or their authorized representative, notify the BHPC of matters pertaining to property on the local register, the National Register of Historic Places, and the state register of historic places. The BHPC shall be given this notice about proposed work as soon as the matters pertaining to property on the local, state and national registers are received by the foregoing city officials. (b) The BHPC will then investigate and prepare its comments on the proposed work. The BHPC's comments will be considered and adopted at a BHPC regular meeting unless the chair determines that a special meeting must be called. The BHPC will promptly submit its comments to the city manager and to all affected departments so that the comments will be received prior to the time a decision on proposed work is made by the city. (c) The city manager or their authorized representative will give timely notice to the BHPC of all projects upon which review by the state historic preservation office is required under SDCL 1 -19A-11.1, and the BHPC may conduct research and prepare comments on the project. SDCL 1-19A-11.1 provides as follows: 1-19A-11.1. Preservation of historic property--Procedures. The state or any political subdivision of the state, or any instrumentality thereof, may not undertake any project which will encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property included in the national register of historic places or the state register of historic places until the State Historical Society has been given notice and an opportunity to investigate and comment on the proposed project. The office may solicit the advice and recommendations of the board with respect to such project and may direct that a public hearing be held thereon. If the office determines that the proposed project will encroach upon, damage or destroy any historic property which is included in the national register of historic places or the state register of historic places or the environs of such property, the project may not proceed until: (1) The Governor, in the case of a project of the state or an instrumentality thereof or the governing body of the political subdivision has made a written determination, based upon the consideration of all relevant factors, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property, resulting from such use; and (2) Ten day's notice of the determination has been given, by certified mail, to the State Historical Society. A complete record of factors considered shall be included with such notice. Any person aggrieved by the determination of the Governor or governing body may appeal the decision pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1-26. The failure of the office to initiate an investigation of any proposed project within thirty days from the date of receipt of notice thereof is approval of the project. Any project subject to a federal historic preservation review need not be reviewed pursuant to this section. Financial Consideration: None/Not Applicable Options: The City Council has the following options: 1. Hold a Public Hearing, discuss the proposed expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center and take no action; 2. Hold a Public Hearing, discuss the proposed expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center, and by motion authorize a Resolution adopting written findings by the Brookings City Council approving a proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current Detention Center; 3. Hold a Public Hearing, discuss the proposed expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center, and by motion authorize a Resolution adopting written findings by the Brookings City Council disapproving a proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current Detention Center. Recommendation: It appears that reasonable efforts to resolve the 11.1 procedural impasse with the County of Brookings have been fully pursued. In order for the City to complete its 11.1 review, it is appropriate for the City to address the final step of its 11.1 historical review – to consider any public testimony, the documents on file (see below) and the proposed alternative Resolutions. Action Requested: Consider both proposed Resolutions, and modify these proposed Resolutions following consideration of public testimony and the facts and circumstances, and approve a Resolution which the City Council deems appropriate. Supporting Documentation: 1. A Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Approving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. 2. A Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Disapproving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. a. Application from BKV Group, November 13, 2017. b. City’s Notification to SHPO of proposed project, November 14, 2017. c. State Historic Preservation Office response requesting case report, November 16, 2017. d. Case Report Submittal, dated January 19, 2018, received by the City on January 22, 2018. e. BHPC Minutes/public comments (approved) February 8, 2018. f. Case Report Addendum, no date, received May 26, 2018. g. BHPC Minutes/public comments (unapproved) June 14, 2018. h. Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinion on SDCL 11.1 Reviews, dated 12/17/2013. i. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Brookings County Courthouse, 1976. j. Official comment of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1 dated July 31, 2018. k. Letter of South Dakota Historical Society (SHPO) dated August 29, 2018. l. Resolution No. 18-44, Brookings County Commission’s Written Determination Concerning the Current Detention Center Expansion Project Pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1(1). {03398378.1} Approves the County’s Proposed Expansion Resolution 19-053 [This proposed Resolution may be adopted in its present form or modified by the City Council following public hearing and action.] A Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Approving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. WHEREAS, a meeting was held to consider the proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current detention center before the City Council at its normal meeting time on July 9, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public meeting, gave notice as required by law, and gave consideration to all relevant factors; and WHEREAS, the Brookings City Manager authorized the Brookings City Attorney’s Office to prepare proposed written findings consistent with the decision of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission in preparation for the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: That the recitals above are adopted as findings, and in addition, the following findings are adopted: FINDINGS: 1. The proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand the current detention center shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Proposal.” 2. The Proposal impacts the Brookings County Courthouse which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. The Proposal was reviewed by the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission (“BHPC”) on February 8, 2018, and again on June 14, 2018, when the Commission determined that the proposal, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the Brookings County Courthouse. Under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1, the BHPC sent official comments dated July 31, 2018, to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 4. On August 29, 2018, SHPO sent a letter to Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, that contained a determination that the Proposal to expand the Brookings County Detention Center upon the grounds of the Brookings County Courthouse would encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic property that is listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places; {03398378.1} and that alternatives to the project had not been adequately considered and should be further explored. 5. The Brookings County Commission adopted its own written determination under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1 on November 6, 2018. 6. The City Council set this meeting to make a final determination on the Proposal under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1. 7. Brookings County had the burden to show the absence of feasible and prudent alternatives. 8. The City Council heard testimony and presentations from City staff, Brookings County, and proponents and opponents of the Proposal. 9. The City Council’s review and consideration included, but was not limited to, the above-referenced testimony and presentation; South Dakota Codified Law 1-19A-11.1; Summary of SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Review Process and the following: a. Application from BKV Group, November 13, 2017 b. City’s Notification to SHPO of proposed project, November 14, 2017 c. State Historic Preservation Office response requesting case report, November 16, 2017 d. Case Report Submittal, dated January 19, 2018, received by the City on January 22, 2018 e. BHPC Minutes/public comments (approved) February 8, 2018 f. Case Report Addendum, no date, received May 26, 2018 g. BHPC Minutes/public comments (unapproved) June 14, 2018 h. Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinion on SDCL 11.1 Reviews, dated 12/17/2013 i. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Brookings County Courthouse, 1976 j. Official comment of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1 dated July 31, 2018 k. Letter of South Dakota Historical Society (SHPO) dated August 29, 2018 l. Resolution No. 18-44, Brookings County Commission’s Written Determination Concerning the Current Detention Center Expansion Project Pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1(1) 10. The applicant has shown the absence of a feasible and prudent alternative to the Proposal. 11. Upon review of the information provided, the Brookings City Council determines that the proposal satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s {03398378.1} Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation, as required by ARSD 24:52:07:02 and ARDS 24:52:07:04. Specifically, the proposal satisfies the following Standards for Rehabilitation: Standard #1: “A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.” [Emphasis added] Finding: The Proposal has sufficiently considered the site and environment, and the proposed design is sufficiently detailed to reflect the materials and quality of the courthouse without directly copying the elements or competing in prominence with the courthouse. {03398378.1} Standard #9: “New additions, exterior alternations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” [Emphasis added] Finding: The massing of the Proposal is not inconsistent with surrounding properties, including a church directly to the north, the Children’s Museum to the northwest, and the former middle school building to the northwest. 12. The overall design of the proposed addition is compatible with the design and materials of the existing courthouse, however, while the size of the proposed addition includes an additional story, the size is therefore not incompatible with the existing courthouse. Moreover, the footprint of the proposed expansion includes area which is currently occupied by surface parking, a jail recreation yard, two wooden storage sheds, and only a net reduction of 369 square feet of landscaped area. Accordingly, the size of the proposed expansion is not incompatible in size and scale with the existing courthouse per Standard #9 because the footprint is very close to the footprint of the structures currently in use. 13. While the west wall of the proposed expansion will be approximately 7 feet from the west wall of the courthouse, the proposed expansion at this location will be subordinate to the existing courthouse. The proposed expansion will replaced a jail recreation yard with razor wire, wooden storage sheds and very little landscaped area with a structure which blends more cohesively with the courthouse. Since the proposed expansion design is purposely scaled to compliment and blend with the historic courthouse, and will replace existing structures which detract from the historic courthouse, the Council believes the proposed addition on the courthouse square will not negatively impact the courthouse’s design and its site and environment. 14. Brookings County has attempted to identify feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal, such as constructing a new detention center in a different location. 15. The cost of an off-site alternative is estimated to be over $3.3 Million Dollars more than expansion at the current site. In addition, annual operational costs for an off -site expansion are estimated to be $450,000 more than an expansion on the current site. Coupled with the significant inefficiencies resulting from the decentralization of the detention center, and increased safety concerns where daily transporting of inmates is required, the City Council finds that an off -site location is not prudent. This conclusion is more broadly based than economic considerations alone. Given the fact the historic structure will remain untouched and that {03398378.1} significant design elements have been planned to minimize impacts upon the site and the historic building, the off-site alternative is imprudent. 16. Brookings County has determined, for the reasons set forth in Resolution No. 18-44 and the County’s submissions to the BHPC and SHPO, that constructing an expanded Detention Center at the current location is the preferred alternative. The City Council, for the reasons stated herein, agrees. 17. The Proposal, if approved, would not have an adverse effect on the Brookings County Courthouse. 18. Based upon consideration of all relevant factors, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the Proposal, and the Proposal includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property resulting from such use. 19. The recorded minutes, video, supporting materials, and testimony on this matter are incorporated herein in support of any and all findings made herein. Passed and approved this ____ day of July, 2019. CITY OF BROOKINGS _____________________________ Keith Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk {03398378.1} Rejects the County’s Proposed Expansion Resolution 19-053 [This proposed Resolution may be adopted in its present form or modified by the City Council following public hearing and action.] A Resolution Adopting Written Findings by the Brookings City Council Disapproving a Proposal of the Brookings County Commission to Expand its Current Detention Center. WHEREAS, a meeting was held to consider the proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand its current detention center before the City Council at its normal meeting time on July 9, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a public meeting, gave notice as required by law, and gave consideration to all relevant factors; and WHEREAS, the Brookings City Manager authorized the Brookings City Attorney’s Office to prepare proposed written findings consistent with the decision of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission in preparation for the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: That the recitals above are adopted as findings, and in addition, the following findings are adopted: FINDINGS: 1. The proposal of the Brookings County Commission to expand the current detention center shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Proposal.” 2. The Proposal impacts the Brookings County Courthouse which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. The Proposal was reviewed by the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission (“BHPC”) on February 8, 2018, and again on June 14, 2018, when the Commission determined that the proposal, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the Brookings County Courthouse. Under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1, the BHPC sent official comments dated July 31, 2018, to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 4. On August 29, 2018, SHPO sent a letter to Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, that contained a determination that the Proposal to expand the Brookings County Detention Center upon the grounds of the Brookings County Courthouse would encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic property that is listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places; {03398378.1} and that alternatives to the project had not been adequately considered and should be further explored. 5. The Brookings County Commission adopted its own written determination under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1 on November 6, 2018. 6. The City Council set this meeting to make a final determination on the Proposal under SDCL § 1-19A-11.1. 7. Brookings County had the burden to show the absence of feasible and prudent alternatives. 8. The City Council heard testimony and presentations from City staff, Brookings County, and proponents and opponents of the Proposal. 9. The City Council’s review and consideration included, but was not limited to, the above-referenced testimony and presentation; South Dakota Codified Law 1-19A-11.1; Summary of SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Review Process and the following: a. Application from BKV Group, November 13, 2017 b. City’s Notification to SHPO of proposed project, November 14, 2017 c. State Historic Preservation Office response requesting case report, November 16, 2017 d. Case Report Submittal, dated January 19, 2018, received by the City on January 22, 2018 e. BHPC Minutes/public comments (approved) February 8, 2018 f. Case Report Addendum, no date, received May 26, 2018 g. BHPC Minutes/public comments (unapproved) June 14, 2018 h. Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinion on SDCL 11.1 Reviews, dated 12/17/2013 i. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Brookings County Courthouse, 1976 j. Official comment of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1 dated July 31, 2018 k. Letter of South Dakota Historical Society (SHPO) dated August 29, 2018 l. Resolution No. 18-44, Brookings County Commission’s Written Determination Concerning the Current Detention Center Expansion Project Pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1(1) 10. Upon review of the information provided, the Brookings City Council determines that the proposal does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation, as required by ARSD 24:52:07:02 and ARDS 24:52:07:04. {03398378.1} Specifically, the proposal does not meet the following Standards for Rehabilitation: Standard #1: “A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.” [Emphasis added] Standard #9: “New additions, exterior alternations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” [Emphasis added] 11. The overall design of the proposed addition is compatible with the design and materials of the existing courthouse, however the size of the proposed addition is incompatible with the existing courthouse. The footprint of the proposed expansion is substantially larger than the footprint of the original courthouse, rendering the addition incompatible in size and scale with the existing courthouse, as per Standard #9. 12. The west wall of the proposed expansion will essentially be flush with the front (west) wall of the courthouse, making it highly visible rather than subordinate to the existing courthouse. As a result, the size and placement of the proposed addition on the courthouse square will negatively impact the courthouse’s symmetrical design and its site and environment. 13. In addition, the Proposal does not satisfy subdivision 1 of ARSD 24:52:07:04, regarding compatibility of design, because the massing, size, and scale of the new construction are not compatible with the historic courthouse. The overall visual appearance of the new construction would dominate the surrounding historic landscape and would infill a significant portion of the historically important civic green space surrounding the courthouse. 14. The Proposal does not satisfy subdivision 10 of ARDS 24:52:07:04, regarding the setting, because the relationship of the new construction to the existing courthouse would not maintain the traditional placement of the historic courthouse in the block and would disrup t the symmetry and balance of the site. 15. Brookings County has identified feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal, such as constructing a new Detention Center in a different location. While the County concludes that an alternative site would be more expensive and would require the transportation of prisoners to the {03398378.1} courthouse, those considerations do not mean that the alternatives are not feasible and prudent. 16. The Brookings City Council is persuaded by the BHPC’s official comment dated July 31, 2018, and adopts its findings and conclusions. 17. The Proposal, if approved, would have an adverse effect on the Brookings County Courthouse. 18. Based upon consideration of all relevant factors, there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the Proposal, and the Proposal has not included all possible planning to minimize harm to the historic property resulting from such use. 19. The recorded minutes, video, supporting materials, and testimony on this matter are incorporated herein in support of any and all findings made herein. Passed and approved this ____ day of July, 2019. CITY OF BROOKINGS _____________________________ Keith Corbett, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Bonnie Foster, Acting City Clerk 11/13/2017 315 7th Ave. Brookings, SD 57006 Bruce Schwartzman, AIA on Behalf of Brookings County 612-790-7605 bschwartzman@bkvgroup.com BKV Group, 222 North Second St. Suite 101 X See attached detailed project description. X X X ATTACHED X X ATTACHED ATTACHED EMAILED UNDER SEPRATE COVER X 1 Laurie Carruthers From:Shari Thornes Sent:Tuesday, November 14, 2017 9:23 AM To:Nelson, Kate Cc:Laurie Carruthers; Bonnie Foster Subject:aFW: Brookings Detention Center - Historic Preservation Commission Submittal (11/13/2017) Kate, Brookings County has submitted an 11.1 application for proposal to expand the jail on the Brookings County Courthouse Square location. The BHPC will want the opportunity to provide official comment during the case report process. Please contact me if you or SHPO staff have any questions. Shari Thornes 691-4038 cell From: Bruce Schwartzman [bschwartzman@bkvgroup.com] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:57 PM To: Shari Thornes Cc: Henry Pittner; Anthony Enright; Stacy Steffensen Subject: Brookings Detention Center - Historic Preservation Commission Submittal (11/13/2017) Shari, On behalf of Brookings County we are submitting the 11.1 application and other documents required for review of the County’s desire to construct a detention center addition to the existing law enforcement center / jail. The files are large to email so the links below have access to the materials required for review. Thank you for your assistance and if you have any questions please don’t hesitate to call or email me. The following file(s) can be downloaded via SendThisFile: Photos For Historic Submittal 2017‐11‐02.zip Download Link: https://www.sendthisfile.com/Hi0sl3j9h5PYDzHkSVJlXAMG The other link contains the following: 2017‐11‐13 Historic Preservation Commission_Additional Information.pdf Brookings County_AIS_2018_HISTORIC SCALED SHEET PACKET.pdf Detailed Project Description.pdf Application ‐ FINAL.pdf Download Link: https://www.sendthisfile.com/es8BOEG9gNaQC80yUHjEGDlN There are four attachments to this message: Application Detailed Project Description Scaled Site Plan and Elevations Additional Information (Renderings) 2 Bruce Schwartzman, AIA | Partner |Architect BKV Group | Architecture, Interior Design, Landscape Architecture, Engineering 222 North 2nd Street, Suite 101, Minneapolis, MN 55401 D: 612.373.9104 | Mobile: 612.790.7605 | www.bkvgroup.com HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ADDITION HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT JANUARY 19,2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3. PLANNING AND APPROVAL SCHEDULE 5. DESCRIPTION OF BROOKINGS COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE SQUARE 6. DESCRIPTION OF POTIENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES 8. DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION WITH OFFICE OF HISTORY 9. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO CONSIDER VIEWS OF INTERESTED PARTIES 10. DOCUMENTATION OF OPINION OF LOCAL HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMISSION (TO FOLLOW AFTER RECEIVED) 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS FROM PUBLIC HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 3. PLANNING AND APPROVAL SCHEDULE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER COURTHOUSE SQUARE 3. DESCRIPTION OF BROOKINGS COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE SQUARE Historic Brookings County Courthouse is located at the intersection of Forth St. and Sixth Ave. in Brookings South Dakota. The historic Courthouse structure was built on 1912 in a Renaissance Revival style with a limestone clad exterior. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 1976. The courthouse square block also includes the Brookings County Law Enforcement Center, built in 1976. The Brookings County Law Enforcement Center has a tan brick exterior with prominent metal roof facia, a fenced exterior yard for secure staff parking and an exterior recreation yard for inmates housed in the adjacent County Detention Center. It was designed in a style very different from the Historic Courthouse with details that echo Prairie or Craftsman style architecture. Parking is provided at the site perimeter, on the North side of the site adjacent to the recreation yard and on the South of the site to the East of the Historic Courthouse. The West side of the Courthouse Square block includes a broad open landscaped area including pedestrian access to the courthouse and old growth trees. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER COURTHOUSE SQUARE ZONING AND NEW SITE PLAN 3. DESCRIPTION OF BROOKINGS COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE SQUARE The Courthouse square site is broadly surrounded by single family residential structures on two sides with the West side facing commercial and cultural structures and the North side facing a mix of residential and worship buildings. Though zones R-2, Courthouse square is located at the edge of a Business and Cultural district of Downtown Brookings. Parking for the site is provided both on street at the site perimeter and on site in a lot that serves both staff and public. EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN NEW TREES SHRUBS AND PLANTINGS IMPROVED SIDEWALK NEW TREES SHRUBS AND PLANTINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER EXISTING PHOTOS 6. DESCRIPTION OF POTIENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed expansion of the Brookings County Detention Center will expand the existing Law Enforcement and Detention Center to the North and the West, eliminate the existing exterior inmate recreation yard and fenced area. The exterior materials will closely match the limestone exterior of the Courthouse similar to the previously constructed elevator addition with fenestration openings that echo the windows on the Historic Courthouse and exterior stone detailing that is similar to but not identical to the existing Courthouse. While some tree removal will be necessary for the new project, none of the old growth trees or the approach lawn area to the West of the Historic Courthouse will be disturbed by the addition. The West façade of the new addition is held back from the face of the Historic Courthouse by more than six feet and the scale is approximately half the height of the adjacent Courthouse. At no point does the new addition touch or connect to the existing Courthouse with the closest wall held 17’ away from the North façade of the Courthouse. Construction limits will be set so as to ensure there is no damage or effect on the structure of the existing Courthouse. As part of the project the exterior of the Law Enforcement facility will be updated to more closely match the new additionwith brick painted to more closely tie into the Courthouse and Detention Center Addition and soffit facia simplified to a less prominent profile. We believe this project will have a net benefit and no detrimental effect on the aesthetics of the Historic Courthouse as the addition will remove unsightly existing exterior yard areas with razor wire and industrial materials and replace them with a new building with scale and finishes that more closely integrate with the formal nature of the existing Courthouse. With the existing old-growth trees to the West to remain, the visual impact of the new addition will be minimal. Further, additional landscaping on the North side of the site adjacent to the new addition will improve the experience for pedestrians coming from the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the cultural attractions and farmer’s market to the South. The existing curb is proposed to be extended out into 4th street as shown on previous sheet site plan to allow for additional landscaping. VIEW FROM NORTHWEST VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST PROPOSED RENDERINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ON SITE BUILDING OPTIONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES A number of alternatives to the current planned addition to the Brookings County Detention Center were reviewed and evaluated. These were briefly described in the original submission to the Historic Office but are explained in greater detail below. OPTION 1 – LOCATE SOUTH OF THE EXISTIGN LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER: Circulation from the existing building to the new was inefficent and complex and location on this side adjacent to more residential units and with higher traffic flow on Third St. made this a less attractive expansion direction. Ultimately the location to the North was deemed more feasible. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ON SITE BUILDING OPTIONS 6. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES OPTION 2 - Vertically oriented jail facility located adjacent to the existing LEC: Operational challenges due to staff intensive vertical orientation and concerns about the height of the building competing in prominence with the Historic Courthouse made it not prudent for the County to pursue this option. 3-D massing Graphics for the North and South Options (below) made it clear that vertical expansion would produce a building height that would not be conducive to maintaining the historic presence of the Courthouse. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ON SITE BUILDING OPTIONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES OPTION 3 - Larger Horizontal expansion to the North and East to the “Zero Lot Line”: Zoning and Setback requirements made this option not feasible, so a smaller building footprint was proposed. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTIONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES OPTION 4 - Construction of a new Detention Center facility at a remote location with LEC and Court Holding to remain at the current location: Quantification of approximately $15M in additional staff and operational costs over the next 20 years added to the County’s operational budget in addition to higher construction costs with utility improvements and land acquisition made this alternative prohibitively expensive with an additional operational cost exceeding $15 million over the next twenty years, and therefore was decided not to be prudent. Details on data considered in relation to exploring the off site building option follow. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST SITE SELECTION CRITERIA •PROXIMITY TO COURTHOUSE •5 ACRE MINUMUM •ACCESS TO UTILITIES: (SEWER, WATER, POWER) •DIRECT ACCESS TO MAIN ROADS •ZONING THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS BUILDING TYPE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER Off Site Options 5 SITES CONSIDERED OPTION 5: 10” SEWER & 8” WATER W/IN 6,200 FT INCREASED UTILITY COST +$650,000 16th Ave W & 211th St 211th St OPTION 3: 30” SEWER W/IN 300 FT 8” WATER W/IN 1300 FT West 16th Ave S & West 8th St SWest 16thAve SOPTION 1: 8” SEWER & 8” WATER W/IN 300 FT Prince Dr & 32nd Ave S OPTION 2: 15” SEWER & 4” WATER W/IN 600 FT Hwy 29 & 32nd Ave SHwy 29OPTION 4: 10” SEWER & 2” WATER W/IN 4,800 FT INCREASED UTILITY COST +$500,000 16th Ave W & W Hwy 1416thAve WW Hwy 14 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Five available building locations offsite were identified and evaluated, including the availability of necessary utilities. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST The original design for the Brookings County Detention Center included using precast panel exterior wall construction with a finish to closely match the existing Courthouse. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST The design for the exterior of the Detention Center was revised to utilize natural and cultivated stone with more a detailed façade to more closely match the Historic Courthouse. As a result, the Cost Estimate was revised upward by approximately $1.8 million as shown below. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FEISABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Cost Estimates for building in offsite locations were also developed and evaluated. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Cost Estimates for building in offsite locations were developed and evaluated. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION OPERATIONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Operational impacts and staffing costs were considered and quantified. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION OPERATIONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Operational impacts and staffing costs were considered and quantified a total cost over a twenty year period was developed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION PROS & CONS 7. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Pros and Cons of Building at the Courthouse Site rather than at a remote location were developed. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST Pros and Cons for Options Existing Jail Courthouse Site Pros 1. Minimal increase to staff operational cost 2. Utilizes existing buildings 3. Lower overall project cost 4. Maintains department operational efficiency by close proximity 5. Current location of the sheriff’s office to the jail provides emergency back up assistance Cons 1. Community concerns on impact of the addition 2. Limited expansion options 3. Limited on-site parking 4. Increased per square foot construction cost for historic design approach 5. Phased construction required Offsite Option Pros 1. Open site allows for more efficient plan configuration 2. Future expansion capability 3. Available parking 4. Lower cost per square foot construction cost based on a more utilitarian design / materials Cons 1. Significant increased staff operational cost 2. Requires building additional building area than in the courthouse option 3. Increased overall project cost 4. Decreased department operational efficiency based on travel time and distance 5. Negatively impacts emergency back-up support form sheriff’s office 6. Court schedule changes will impact operational efficiency of jail staff & inmate movement HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION SCHEDULE 6. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF FIESABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVES Schedules comparing building at the Courthouse Site and at a remote location were developed. 2 MONTH DIFFERENCE IN COMPLETION CONSTRUCTION START JULY 23, 2018 CONSTRUCTION START MAY 28, 2018 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 8. DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION WITH OFFICE OF HISTORY Prior to submitting the Brookings Detention Center - Historic Preservation Commission Submittal 11.1 application for review on November 13, 2017 Bruce Schwartzman contacted Kate Nelson, a Restoration Specialist with the South Dakota State Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office. In that conversation Mr. Schwartzman discussed the general project design direction with Ms. Nelson. Brookings County and BKV Group’s goal is to follow SD State as well as other state’s historic guidelines to respect and maintain historic characteristics of the site. The approaches discussed in that conversation were: •The new building will not connect to the historic courthouse •The addition will be set back from the prominent west elevation of the existing courthouse •The height of the new building will be lower than the existing courthouse to not compete or overpower the building mass •The exterior materials and detailing is being planned to not compete but compliment the historic materials and detailing of the courthouse. BKV would like to meet and review these features with SHPO as the project proceeds. •The existing law enforcement center and detention center materials and building design currently do not reflect or complement the existing courthouse. The plan as part of the new project will be to paint the existing brick and alter the roof edge conditions to create a more campus feel and compliment the design of the new addition. As discussed in the call this has been an appropriate an acceptable approach in many states around the country to preserve and respect historic character. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 9. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS TO CONSIDER VIEWS OF INTERESTED PARTIES The project being considered is a Brookings County project, as such it requires public communication and notifications. The following is a summary of all the dates and items that have occurred over the past year. February 21, 2017 Tom Grimmond with Dougherty & Co. discussed bonding options with the Commission at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting. March 2, 2017 Commissioners held an Open House reception regarding the jail expansion project at the courthouse with Architects BKV Group present. April 3, 2017 Commissioners held an Open House in the Commission Chambers and invited the public to discuss the jail expansion project. April 4, 2017 Commissioners took action approving a resolution to move forward with the jail expansion project. They also approved a resolution bonding for the project. June 1, 2017 The City of Brookings Board of Adjustment heard the County’s request for a zero setback variance. The variance was denied. July 11, 2017 The Commissioners on the Jail Expansion Committee provided a project update during a routine monthly Commission meeting. September 5, 2017 Architects BKV Group gave a presentation with updated plans to the Commission at a routine Commission meeting. September 11, 2017 Commissioners held a Jail Expansion Open House in the Commission Chambers. September 26, 2017 At a regularly scheduled Commission meeting, the Commission took action to move forward with the jail expansion project on the current jail site and seek an amended variance from the City’s Board of Adjustment. October 19, 2017 The City of Brookings Board of Adjustment heard the County’s variance request for amended setbacks for the jail expansion project. The variance request was approved. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 10. OPINION OF LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMISSION TO FOLLOW, NOT YET RECEIVED. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 10. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC Brookings County has reached out on numerous occasions and through a variety of means to get community comments and input. When the County Board voted to approve the additional tax impact required for the project on April 4, 2017 no one spoke to the County Board in opposition of the project. The current zoning on the property is a residential zoning which requires a building setback of 25’ for the front and rear yards. In addition because property consumes the entire block the City has imposed that same 25’ residential setback on all 4 sides. To make the new addition fit on the site required a request for a setback variance. Based on that a request was submitted to the Variance Board and a hearing was held on June 1, 2017, at that time a select group of local residence expressed their concerns to the County’s plan. Adjustments were made and another hearing was held on October 19th at which time the requested variance was granted. The following are the motions, the variance board’s action on the motions and the comments that occurred during discussion from both meetings. June 1, 2017 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC June 1, 2017 Comments HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC June 1, 2017 Comments, cont. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC October 19, 2017 Comments HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC October 19, 2017 Comments cont. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC October 19, 2017 Comments cont. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CASE REPORT BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 11. COPIES OF WRITTEN VIEWS OF PUBLIC October 19, 2017 Comments cont. 1 Brookings Historic Preservation Commission February 8, 2018 Minutes A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Angie Boersma, Greg Heiberger, Carrie Kuhl, Janet Gritzner, Leah Brink, Janet Merriman, Jessica Garcia Fritz and Virginia James. Absent: Dennis Willert. Others present: Shari Thornes and Laurie Carruthers. Guests included: BKD Architects Bruce Schwartzman and Anthony Enright, Sheriff Marty Stanwick, Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe, County Commissioners Lee Ann Pierce and Larry Jensen, Rick & Joanie Holm, Donn & Yvonne Fetzer, Pat Fishback and Mary Negstad. Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Heiberger, seconded by Kuhl, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Brink, to approve the January 11, 2018 minutes. All present voted yes; motion carried. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT AND ELECTION OF 2018 OFFICERS Merriman reported the nominating committee met and made the recommendation for Angie Boersma as Chair and Carrie Kuhl as Vice-Chair. A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Brink, to appoint Angie Boersma as Chair and Carrie Kuhl as Vice-Chair. All present voted yes; motion carried. DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON AN 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BROOKINGS COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION Property Address: 314 6th Avenue & 315 7th Avenue Property Owner: Brookings County Applicant: Bruce Schwartzman, AIA, BKV Group, on behalf of Brookings County Year Built 1912 Historic District/Listing: Brookings County Courthouse – Individually Listed (1976) Brookings Central Residential Historic District – List in 1986 and expanded 1997, borders the courthouse grounds on the north, east, and south sides Historic Carnegie Public Library – Individually Listed (1980), is located west of the courthouse square Category: Contributing Architect/Style: C.E. Bell, Tyrie and Chapman Renaissance Revival style. Project Description: The applicant is requesting to construct a 17,500 square foot addition to the existing jail and Law Enforcement Center to the north of the existing building along with a remodeling of approximately 4,750 square feet of the existing Center and jail. The applicant’s submittal reads as follows: “the new building will be one story with a mezzanine level at the jail housing for a total height of approximately 22 feet on the west side and 27’ 8” on the east side. The exterior façade will be clad in architectural cast stone in a color and finish to closely match both the limestone of the existing historic Courthouse and the cast stone of the vertical circulation addition to the east of the Courthouse. The exterior will be articulated with horizontal banding and a stone cornice which relate to the architectural style of the Courthouse without directly copying 2 building elements. Windows and doors will be of similar scale, material, and finish to those on the Courthouse in order to visually relate without directly copying. The west façade has been held back approximately 6’ from the farthest West façade of the Courthouse so as not to compete with the prominence of the historic building. The proposed new building is sited approximately 17’ to the north of the Courthouse and does not touch the courthouse on any side. With the exception of 2 to 3 existing trees, which will need to be removed in order to construct the new building, all existing landscape including many mature trees directly to the West of the proposed new building will remain. As shown in the photos provided, this landscape buffer allows the west façade of the Courthouse to retain its prominence on the block and reduces any perceived visual impact from the new building. On the North, new trees, shrubs and plantings along the sidewalk will improve the pedestrian experience along 4th St. and an extended landscape area between 4th and the sidewalk will allow for additional boulevard trees between the new building and this primarily residential street. On the east façade, the heavy metal cornice on the existing Law Enforcement Center will be replaced with a lighter, less prominent cornice to better relate to the entire County campus, and the existing brick will be stained to more closely relate to the existing courthouse and new Detention Center. The new addition would eliminate the existing concrete masonry enclosed outdoor recreation yard topped with razor wire and a service drive currently enclosed with a 6’ high fence topped with barb wire.” SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Review Required SDCL 1-19A-11.1 requires local governments to extend certain protections to historic properties listed on national, state or local registers. Local governments are not to issue a permit for any project that would encroach upon, damage or destroy a designated property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that would prevent such encroachment, damage or destruction. Cities have both the authority and duty to deny a permit for any project adversely affecting an historic property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that will eliminate or mitigate the adverse impact. The State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the application and based on the information provided, felt the project has the potential to encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic property that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. They requested an abbreviated case report responding to questions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 on November 16, 2017. For item #10, they requested the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission review and comment on the abbreviated case report within 180 days of receipt prior to submittal to the SHPO. Process Overview The attached Flow Chart outlines the following steps in the SDCL 1-19A-11.1 review process. All 11.1 review application and resource documents are also available on the City of Brookings website (City of Brookings 11.1 Review Process Documents). 1. Initial Notification - The first step is for the City to formally notify the State of a pending project. It does so by submitting the property owner’s application (City Application) to the State Historic Preservation Office for review. (Application submitted 11/13/17) 3 2. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review - If the SHPO determines that the project will encroach upon, damage, or destroy a historic property, then the project may not proceed until a few requirements have been met, which can include completing a case report, Commission review, and public comment. (SHPO response dated 11/16/17) 3. Case Report Submittal – Applicant submits case report and supporting materials to the BHPC for review. (Applicant submitted case report dated 1/19/18 and received on 1/22/18) 4. BHPC Review - The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission will evaluate materials provided by the applicant, request additional information, seek public input, and submit its final official comment to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Commission will consider if the applicant has fully addressed all feasible and prudent alternatives, demonstrated appropriate planning to minimize harm, used specific and measurable factors for analysis, and provided documentation that has been developed by professionals experienced in community planning, design, construction and rehabilitation of historical structures. All of these questions and documentation are all outlined in the Case Report Standards noted above. Question #7 is of particular importance. An applicant needs to demonstrate what other alternatives were considered, the criteria by which those alternatives were evaluated, and why they may have been eliminated. Feasible and prudent alternatives are specific to each situation. Examples of feasible and prudent alternatives for other projects have included, but are not limited to, a different use, scaled back use, relocation, rezoning, integration into new construction, selling, not doing the project, mothballing the structure, and many others. Case Report #7: A historic preservation plan or description and evaluation of all feasible and prudent alternatives which a state entity or political subdivision proposes in order to minimize adverse effects of a project on historic property and alternatives which the state entity or political subdivision has examined and rejected. The reasons for rejection must be included. This section of the case report must clearly substantiate that all possible efforts to minimize harm to the historic property have been undertaken. Alternatives to aspects of the project which may adversely affect the historic property must: (a) Receive consideration based on factual reports, research, tried methods, and professional and lay preservation advice; (b) Explore alternatives beyond the immediate project, taking into account broad community or regional issues in which the historic resources may play a contributing role; (c) Take into account the impact of potential adverse effects on surrounding historic resources, community preservation plans, and long-range community opportunities; (d) Be based on professional assessments of the value and basic structural condition of the affected property and estimates of a range of rehabilitation or mitigative options prepared by people experienced in historical preservation work; and (e) Provide adequate periods of time for information to be prepared and for preservation options to be attempted; The Commission will also evaluate if the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (SDAR 24:52:07:02), in the case of an addition or new construction, the Commission will also consider SDAR 24:52:07:04 New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts. 5. BHPC Comments - The Commission’s final comments are then sent to the State for comment. The State will issue its final comments on the project and if it finds the project will damage, destroy, or encroach upon a historic property, the City cannot issue the permit until it has made a written determination (see case report for requirements). 4 6. Final Decision - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission (BHPC) do not have final approval of the project. The City of Brookings makes the final decision to approve or deny the permit. 7. SHPO Notification - If the City makes a decision to approve the permit, it must give the State an additional 10 day notice along with the complete record of factors considered, before they would be allowed to issue a permit. Resources 1. Case Report Standards: http://www.cityofbrookings.org/DocumentCenter/View/2833 2. Secretary of Interior Standards for Design http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm) 3. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf 4. South Dakota Attorney General’s Opinion: http://www.cityofbrookings.org/DocumentCenter/View/2834 5. SD 24:52:07:04 for New Construction & Additions: http://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=24:52:07:04 6. Other alternatives and supporting facts ACTION: The BHPC has been asked by the SHPO to provide official comment on the case report. The Commission may: 1) Determine insufficient information in case report to provide comment, request additional information from the applicant and table action; 2) Determine further review of options is needed and table action; 3) Agree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments, 4) Disagree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments; or 5) Decline to comment on the findings of the case report. Bruce Schwartzman and Anthony Enright from BKV Group provided a project overview. The proposed jail expansion will not be taller than the Courthouse and respects the Courthouse’s elevation. Initially, they did not consider the materials for the project, but have changed them to utilize limestone and other detail features, which compliment the Courthouse. The law enforcement center is not going anywhere. It is better to have a unified rather than hodgepodge expansion. The plan is to paint the existing law enforcement center. There have been problems with moving inmates, so they looked at expansion options north and south from the Courthouse. With the traffic from 3rd Street, they choose to expand along 4th Street. The existing law enforcement center will be renovated. After public comment, they researched five offsite options, but the County determined the onsite option was the best. The plan is to break ground in September or October 2018 or spring of 2019. If construction waits until 2019, there is a 5-6% inflation rate on the project. The current law enforcement center was built in 1976. The County received many comments on the expansion’s impact to the walkability of the neighborhood. They decided to remove the parking along 4th Street and replace it with landscaping to reduce the negative impact to the neighborhood. The expansion will not connect the jail to the Courthouse. The first variance application failed with a zero lot line. The plan was modified and included offsite alternatives. The project initially cost $10.8 million. With the additional design elements, the project cost is $12.6. The offsite cost is $14.1. Offsite with a court space would be $17.9 million. County Commissioners and staff visited with Roberts and Hughes Counties about their offsite jails and both counties advised to build the jail onsite with the Courthouse. 5 Chair Boersma asked if the Historic Preservation Commissioners had any questions specific to the project. Merriman questioned the offsite versus onsite correction officer staffing costs. She noted the cost comparison is not present for the offsite option versus the proposed new onsite facility. Brookings County Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe produced the projected staffing costs and would need to look at the numbers to clarify. Heiberger questioned if the current jail was renovated in 1976, will the County be back for another expansion in 15 years to tear down the current jail or request major renovations. Schwartzman advised that with the current inmate projections, the proposed project would last at least 20 years. Heiberger asked what the life span of the current jail is since it is 40 years old. Schwartzman advised that it would need to be maintained, it has structural integrity. The Sheriff’s office has not grown. The space is needed for inmates. Boersma questioned the cost of construction. Option 1 is $350/square foot new construction onsite and $200/square foot to renovate the on existing jail. Option 1A is $410/square foot for the onsite additional façade treatments. Boersma noted this is a drastic cost per square foot. The offsite construction should cost less per square feet for new construction. However, in the projections provided for the offsite location, new construction costs $370/square foot. If onsite construction costs $350/square foot, how can offsite construction cost $370? Boersma questioned if there is a miscalculation. Enright responded that the property purchase could be the increase. Boersma responded the property purchase is a separate line in the cost estimate. Enright advised the number could be increased because of site development. Boersma noted that is also a separate line item. Boersma stated that if the County is making an argument about the feasibility of a project based on cost, especially tax payer cost, the Commission needs accurate information in order to evaluate this case correctly. Schwartzman advised that BKV is working on four jail projects and the cost of construction on all four is between $350- $400/square feet. James stated the Commission needs accurate records during these meetings when it is taxpayers’ dollars at hand. Boersma questioned the impact of the parking removal along 4th Street. Enright responded that was the city’s suggestion and no additional parking is planned. The additional staff would park at the lot north of the facility. Inmates do not require parking. Boersma asked if offsite options were considered at the beginning of the entire process. Schwartzman responded offsite options were not considered until after the public hearing. To renovate the existing building would be the least cost option. Boersma replied that the issues of massing, scale and set backs are self-imposed limitations based on the forgone conclusion that the jail had to be onsite. Enright responded that every design project has limitations and opportunities. This is not bad, it gives them the opportunity to design a project that is harmonious with the Courthouse. He handed out BKD project examples of new construction with historic buildings. Brink asked how many South Dakota counties have jails. Schwartzman replied around 30 counties have jails. Brink questioned how many of those counties have jails attached or next to the courthouse versus being offsite. BKD did not have that number. Gritzner asked if the present jail would remain even if they county choose to build offsite. BKD responded yes. 6 Heiberger asked if there is any discussion to remove the current jail in order to keep the massing down and build on that space with a new facility. BKD responded that the price to house the inmates during construction would be great. Heiberger asked if the county considered constructing on the south side of the current site, then remove the current jail for parking. Enright replied that they did consider the south side, but it would take up more footprint to make it work. Heiberger asked if the additional staffing was $5 million or $15 million. BKD could not answer. Heiberger responded that the county was okay with increasing the cost by $2 million to fit within the historic neighborhood. If you take that $2 million and the staffing number comes out to be $5 million, it is a very different conversation as there would only be a $3 million difference over the cost for 20 years. Historic preservation does not think in 20 year windows, rather 75-100+ year windows. Enright responded that it was definitely not $5 million. The County Commission did not take the decision lightly; it involved a lot of data. Merriman noted SDAR 25.52.704 has specific requirements for height and width as compared to existing and adjacent buildings and none of the drawings submitted has dimensions. She requested very specific dimensions as to massing, height and width as compared to the properties along the north and east sides of the street. Brink questioned if the jail would be built offsite, would the 24/7 program stay at the current location. Enright replied that it would be a transportation hardship for the participants. If an offsite location was built, the 24/7 program would stay at the current location. Boersma opened the discussion up to public comment and asked the proponents to comment. Lee Ann Pierce Chair of County Commission wanted to respond to what the architects said. The County Commission did consider offsite options, but just in the operational aspect. They felt it was their statutory duty to provide court services onsite and never performed a cost analysis of onsite versus onsite options. The County owns the parking lot with 70 parking spaces at the 5th Street Gym. Inmates, staff or overflow from courthouse will utilize that lot. Pierce has experiences working in other counties where jail is not in the same place. She stated that offsite locations are lost opportunities, and it does not work well. Sheriff Marty Stanwick advised parking has not been an issue, even on high traffic court days. If parking becomes a problem, they can accommodate or change the court schedule. The inmate population has changed since he started in 1976. They used to have dorm space, but now need more space for felons. The jail needs a classification system for the inmates’ space. When the new part of the jail is complete, the old part of the jail will be remodeled for safe rooms for mental health and medical separation. If Brookings keeps the current trend, the county will have plenty of jail space to rent to the surrounding counties. It is hard to predict the future, but he does know Brookings will need a treatment facility. He cannot predict if the jail will last for 30 years. However, in 30 years, the county will need to build a courthouse and he does not know where that will be located. The present Courthouse could be a museum. Heiberger asked if Sheriff Stanwick was an officer when the current jail was built in 1976. Sheriff Stanwick started in 1977. Heiberger asked Stanwick if he would have envisioned the current inmate population in 2018. Stanwick replied no. Heiberger asked what does 2048 look like? Stanwick advised that is a good question. Heiberger elaborated that feasible and prudent alternatives have a phased approach. The County is building the proposed onsite jail around a 1970’s building that will be remodeled. What he just heard is the County is building this structure to rent out spaces to other counties and mental health cases 7 that are pushed off from the hospital. Stanwick advised that he cannot predict the 2048 inmate population, but he believes the focus would prevention and treatment at that time. Larry Jensen is a County Commissioner and sat on the Jail Expansion Committee. In 30 years this facility could become a regional option for juvenile or women. It will be used. As for costs, he is not happy the numbers did not match. He does know that two facilities cost more to run than one. He hopes the concerns and issues can be worked out, so the county can work through its project. Boersma asked for the opponents to comment. Pat Fishback stated that building in an area, which includes the Carnegie Library, Children’s Museum of South Dakota, a historic church, historic former school building, residential historic district and is adjacent to the National Register listed Courthouse, warrants precision planning. Community members would naturally expect a long term, thoughtful, well-outlined plan to solve the critical needs of the jail. What does seem to have been well developed in the process of meeting the county’s needs, was a space needs study. Building onto the jail in the middle of town and asking for a variance seemed unusual. At first the space specified to meet the jail’s needs was presented with a zero lot line setback. That variance was denied at the June 1 Board of Adjustment meeting. The public only heard one piece of information regarding the next steps from June 1 until September 5, 2017. She is a former member of the Historic Preservation Commission. Often the public blames the Historic Preservation Commission for hold-ups. However, the Historic Preservation Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office are the last people to see most of the projects. That three month hold up was from the County Commission. From the meeting on September 5, the community learned the setbacks were smaller, but residents were assured that in limiting the space, no essential functions would be impacted. It appears the County needs are greater than this space will permit. She wonders if the architectural drawing is a reality or an artist’s concept. It is lacks detail. In regards to the feasibility of all alternatives considered, she questions if the information on offsite options provides an accurate comparison. First the public was told 10 sites were considered. Those were numbered on architectural drawings as 6 through 10. The next drawings provided limited data for sites 1 through 5. The drawings with offsite options changed again from the September 5 County Commission Meeting to the September 11 Open House. She envisions many change orders in the future with limited oversite for changes and certainly no requirement for public awareness of those changes. The options for offsite expansion seem legitimate and worth further pursuing. Fishback is aware of another county with an offsite jail and the courtroom is located within the offsite jail. The judge holds court twice a week or as necessary – one day court is held at the courthouse, one day court is held at the offsite jail. She encourages pursuit of alternatives to the current onsite expansion. Yvonne Fetzer stated that of the 66 counties in South Dakota, only 22 have jails. Other counties share jails with other counties and do not have the convenience of a jail. Mary Negstad is a former County Commissioner. Brookings has one of the most beautiful courthouses. She has always viewed it as a park setting; not a jail or surrounded by a jail. The present jail could be used for booking and then transport inmates to the offsite jail. An offsite jail would have more land and not have the confines of the onsite location. Brookings has grown. The offsite location is better because the jail would be remote and not in a residential area. Nancy Flynn provided public comment by email: After reviewing the Case Review Form for Historical Preservation projects, and focusing my attention on question 7, I feel that not enough time was spent by the county commissioners exploring the option of 8 building off site. I feel that the county commissioners don’t have a handle on the values of this community. There has not been a City report made to the County on the impact of an expanded county jail in the heart of the city. The mutual respect of the two separate governing bodies will hurt the vision of the city. The City Planning Long Range Report/Plan that is to be presented soon states that this community appreciates the small town feel. If anything, increasing the green space around the courthouse, not taking it away physically or visually enhances the “small town feel.” This is our opportunity as a community to take the jail out of the core of the Historical District. I am aware that the current jail would still need to be renovated to make an offsite larger jail work with the courthouse and feel that the exterior enhancement of that building and surrounding space would better suit our Courthouse. Please pass these thought on to the rest of the Brookings Historical Commission. Nancy Flynn, 711 Fourth St. Boersma closed the public comment and asked for a motion based on the information provided. A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Heiberger, to table any action on the Brookings County Jail Expansion as there is not significant enough information to make a comment. In order to take action on this matter, the Historic Preservation Commission requests the applicant provide the following information: 1) The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs; 2) The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report; 3) Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project; and 4) Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative. All present voted yes; motion carried. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT CITY COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN The Community Development Department is seeking input on the draft Comprehensive Master Plan. Comments and input must be submitted by Tuesday, February 13th. http://cityofbrookings.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6018 A Comprehensive Master Plan public open house is scheduled on February 12th from 12-1 and 5-7 p.m. The HPC will have a special meeting the week of February 12 to respond to the draft Comprehensive Master Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOALS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY 2018-2023 STRATEGIC PLAN City Management Team’s draft 2018-2023 Strategic Plan – The City Manager distributed a draft strategic plan to the City Management Team on January 10th for review. The plan will be used as the baseline for the City Council’s May 11th Strategic Planning Retreat. It includes three core themes: A) Provide high quality delivery of basic, core public services that are efficient and effective through a well-managed and high performing city government. B) Develop initiatives that promote and expand quality community growth and economic strength that is diverse and sustainable. C) Develop initiatives that establish unique community identity characteristics 9 The City Manager has tentatively identified initiatives in each theme, including the following that pertains to historic preservation. Staff recommends the BHPC submit recommended goals for the City Council to consider for this initiative. Members discussed a variety of ideas to include: STRATEGIC INITIATIVE C-2: Continue to advance efforts that support appreciation and preservation of historic structures. GOAL C-2-1: GOAL C-2-1: City Manager will meet with City Council on March 13, and it would be helpful to provide the HPC goals. PROJECT/ISSUE UPDATES & REPORTS A. 2018/2019 National Park Service funding application Final input is needed on recommended projects to include in the funding application. Thornes will submit a request for basic funding, travel and completion of current projects. B. Events/Special Projects Mayor’s Awards: The tentative date for the combined Mayor’s Award event is Thursday, September 27, 2018. Green Drinks/Register Article – The BHPC needs to finalize the presenter, topic and title in time for the Sustainability Council’s February 14 meeting. Boersma will be the presenter at the April 26 Green Drinks at 6 pm at Wooden Legs and provide staff with the topic. C. Liaisons Reports 1) Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (Boersma & Garcia Fritz) 2) Public Arts Commission (Brink) – Meeting today, discussed Comp Plan. D. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) February 1st was the deadline for Deadwood Fund grant applications, so our staff will be reviewing those in the coming weeks. CLG grant applications will be coming to you soon. Chris Nelson sent an email on Jan. 30 to all CLG contacts to start planning for the application. The next SDSHS Board meeting will be held April 26 in Rapid City, in conjunction with the annual history conference, April 27-28 (also in Rapid City). The statewide CLG conference is planned for May 16-18 in Vermillion. Clay County HPC is working on the planning now. Just a reminder that May is Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month! It’s never too early to start planning some fun preservation-related events for your community. Mail today – accepting nominations State Historical Society Board. Deadline March 2. 2018 Governor’s Award for History due February 22. E. Executive Committee/Staff Updates The Thursday, March 8th meeting date has been rescheduled to Wednesday, March 14th at 5:00 p.m. The BHPC submitted a letter of support for the South Dakota Agricultural Heritage Museum’s Deadwood grant application 10 May Preservation Month o One property/week “This Place Matters” campaign F. Announcements/Correspondence/Communications/Calendar April 26 – Green Drinks April 27 – Historic Sites on Bikes May – Historic Preservation Month Apr 27-18, 2018 State Historical Society Annual Meeting, Rapid City May 16-18, 2018 South Dakota Statewide CLG Conference, Vermillion, Donovan Rypkema Keynote May 24, 2018 City Volunteer Appreciation Reception, 5-7 pm, McCrory Gardens June 16-18, 2018 St. Paul’s Episcopal 100th Anniversary Event July 18-22, 2018 NAPC Forum, Des Moines Oct 2-3, 2018 Growing Sustainable Communities Conference, Dubuque Nov 2018 National Trust Conference, date & location pending Meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Carruthers RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER On February 8, 2018 The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission requested the following additional information from the County in response to the submitted case report. 1. The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs. 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report. 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 4. Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative. BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER BROOKINGS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MOTION FROM FEBRUARY 8, 2018 MEETING RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER Operational impacts and staffing costs were re-evaluated, and quantified on a yearly basis. 1. The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs 1.1 OPTION A - Building on Site OPTION B -Building Off Site with manning current jail Monday & Tuesday for Main Court Periods OPTION C - Building Off Site with 24/7 remaining at current Jail Need YEARLY COST YEARLY COST YEARLY COST Existing Staff Payroll Budget $837,634.00 $837,634.00 $837,634.00 Control Room Staff - Hire 3 Additional Full-time Correctional Officers ($70,769.00 each) $212,307.00 $212,307.00 $212,307.00 Transport Staff - Hire 1 Deputy Sheriff ($82,412.00) $82,412.00 $82,412.00 Transport Staff (2 Part-time Correctional Officers, 2 days per week each at 8 hours per day, total of 16 hours each per week @ $17.54 per hour)$29,186.56 $29,186.56 24/7 Sobriety Program staff wages operating every day, 6AM-10PM. 2 Staff per shift. Hire 3 Full-time and the rest as Part-time hours. (16 hours per day, total of 32 hours each day)$273,176.12 Utilities at Existing Jail Site $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 Utilities for New Jail Unknown Unknown Unknown TOTAL COSTS $1,087,941.00 $1,199,539.56 $1,472,715.68 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER BUILDING OPTION COMPARISONS Cost Comparison OPTION A - Existing Jail / Courthouse Site Estimated Project Cost: $12,608,419 Estimated Operational Cost: $21,758,820 ($1,087,941 per year x 20 years) Total: $34,367,239 OPTION B - Offsite Option – 24/7 Moves to Remote Jail Site Estimated Project Cost: $14,163,582 Estimated Operational Cost: $23,990,791.20 ($1,199,539.56 per year x 20 years) Total: $38,154,373.20 Differential between A and B: $3,787,134.20 (Over 20 years) OPTION C - Offsite Option – 24/7 Remains Estimated Project Cost: $14,163,582 Estimated Operational Cost: $29,454,313.60 ($1,472,715.68 per year x 20 years) Total: $43,617,985.60 Differential between A and C: $9,250,656.60 (Over 20 years) 1. The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs 1.2 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE •Exhibit 1 – Approximate cost per square foot for recent jail construction in South Dakota with yearly construction inflation up to 2019 o Hughes - $355 / SF o Roberts - $371 / SF o Faulk - $436 / SF o Minnehaha - $396 / SF •Exhibit 2 - Original Jail Construction Estimate Approved by the County Commission for project to proceed on Feb 7, 2017 with construction occurring next to the existing jail (average new jail construction at $350 / SF). •Exhibit 3 – Construction Estimate in September 2017, differences from Exhibit 1 o Increased program area required o Changes in the detention construction industry indicating potential for increased construction costs •Exhibit 4 - Revised existing jail construction budget based on: o Using a stone veneer exterior to better blend with historic concerns o Exterior remodeling of the existing jail to blend better with the addition and courthouse. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report 2.0 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE . •Hughes County – $229 per sf in 2010 with 5% per year escalation would be $355 in 2019 •Roberts County - $207 per sf in 2007 with 5% per year escalation would be $371 in 2019 •Faulk County - $377 per sf in 2016 with 5% per year escalation would be $436 in 2019 •Minnehaha County - $360 per sf in 2017 with 5% per year escalation would be $396 in 2019 BKV is seeing detention costs escalating around the country due to increased jail construction and limited detention contractors and suppliers. To allow for the potential increase and based on an analysis of these recently constructed jails in South Dakota, the estimated cost was increased by $20/SF on subsequent estimates. For the record BKV included the original estimate that was prepared and approved previously by the County Board, the original $350 per sf amount was left as previously reviewed. VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report EXHIBIT 1 – South Dakota Jail Construction Cost Analysis (Based on available data) 2.1 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ON SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST EXHIBIT 1 $350 PER SF ON 02/07/2017 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report 2.2 EXHIBIT 2 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER OFF SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST $370 PER SF ON 09/11/2017 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report EXHIBIT 3 2.3 QUESTION 2 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ON SITE BUILDING OPTION ESTIMATE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST $410 PER SF ON 09/11/2017 ACCOUNTS BOTH FOR ADJUSTED MARKET CONDITIONS AND CHANGE IN CONSTRUCTION METHODS. 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report EXHIBIT 4 2.4 QUESTION 2 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ADJACENT BUILDING SETBACKS - APPROXIMATE 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.53.1 QUESTION 3 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER Existing Courthouse Setback Request 8’-4” 5’-0” New Curb Alignment with New Landscaping to Improve Pedestrian Experience Proposed Detention Center Addition ZONING R26thAvenue 3rd STREET Building Setback Building Setback Property Line Property Line Property Line 25’ 25’ Existing Sheriff’s Office & Detention Center FINAL APPROVED SITE PLAN PER VARIANCE 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.17thAvenue4thSTREET100'190'120'131'103' 43.5' 72.5' 116'107'79' 3.2 QUESTION 3 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHTS - APPROXIMATE 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.43.1 QUESTION 3 3.3 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.222'-2"42'-5"27'-8"42'-5"22'-2"27'-8"3.4 QUESTION 3 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER EAST ELEVATION 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.327'-8"14'42'-5"40'22'-2"3.5 QUESTION 3 RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER SW PERSPECTIVE WITH PROPOSED HEIGHTS 3.527'-8"22'-2"42'33'25'24'23'-8"40'3.4 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project. 3.6 QUESTION 3 NW PERSPECTIVE WITH PROPOSED HEIGHTS RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER JAIL STAFF PROJECTIONS 4. Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative. 4.14.1JAIL BED NEEDS PROJECTIONS QUESTION 4 The acronym ADP Represents the projected Average Daily Population of the Detention Center Per above, the 45 year bed need projection is 85. The planned new facility would have a rated capacity of 84 beds. RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER COURTHOUSE SQUARE - PARKING •LOT 1 = •LOT 2 = •STREET 1 = •STREET 2 = •STREET 3 = •STREET 4 = PARKING EVALUATION 21 9 11 8 79 26 12 11 -9 -15 SHERIFF PARKING POST PROJECT COURTHOUSE PARKING COUNTS SE PARKING LOT - AREA 1 - 21 SPACES STREET PARKING - AREA 2 - 9 SPACES STREET PARKING - AREA 3 - 11 SPACES STREET PARKING - AREA 4 - 8 SPACES 1921 PARKING LOT - AREA 5 - 79 SPACES STREET PARKING - AREA 6 - 26 SPACES STREET PARKING AREA 7 - 11 SPACES STREET PARKING - AREA 8 - 12 SPACES TOTAL PUBLIC PARKING - 177 SPACES EXISTING PARKING TO BE OMITTED STREET PARKING - 9 SPACES JAIL PARKING LOT - 15 SPACES TOTAL EXISTING ELIMINATED - 24 SPACES FUTURE PARKING (SUMMER 2019) CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH SIDE LOT - 44 TO 48 SPACES OTHER ADJACENT PARKING CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER LOT - 50 SPACES STREET PARKING AT CITY / COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER - 20 SPACES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 1 - NE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 1 - NE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 1 - NW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 1 - NW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 2 - NE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 2 - NE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 2 - NW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE TO BHPC 2/8 MOTION BROOKINGS COUNTY DETENTION CENTER RENDERINGS OF DESIGN OPTION 2 - NW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Brookings Historic Preservation Commission June 14, 2018 Minutes (unapproved) A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Angie Boersma, Greg Heiberger, Carrie Kuhl, Dennis Willert (arrived 5:24 p.m.), Janet Gritzner, Jessica Garcia Fritz, Leah Brink and Virginia James. Absent: Janet Merriman. Others present: Shari Thornes and Bonnie Foster. Audience: County Commission members Stephane Miller, Ryan Krogman, Mike Bartley, Larry Jensen; Bruce Schwartzman, BKV Group Architects; Diane Kosbau, Yvonne Fetzer, Nancy Flynn, Lawrence Novotny, Pat Fishback, Dan Kemp, Michelle Kemp, Gloria Kloster, Martin Kloster; Sheriff Marty Stanwick, Assistant Sheriff Scott Sebring, and Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe. Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Heiberger, seconded by Kuhl, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by Kuhl, seconded by Garcia Fritz, to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes. All present voted yes; motion carried. DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON AN 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BROOKINGS COUNTY JAIL EXPANSION (TABLEDFEBRUARY 8,2018). Property Address:314 6th Avenue & 315 7th Avenue Property Owner:Brookings County Applicant:Bruce Schwartzman, AIA, BKV Group, on behalf of Brookings County Year Built 1912 Historic District/Listing: Brookings County Courthouse – Individually Listed (1976) Brookings Central Residential Historic District – List in 1986 and expanded 1997, borders the courthouse grounds on the north, east, and south sides Historic Carnegie Public Library – Individually Listed (1980), is located west of the courthouse square Category:Contributing Architect/Style: C.E. Bell, Tyrie and Chapman, Renaissance Revival style Project Description: The applicant is requesting to construct a 17,500 square foot addition to the existing jail and Law Enforcement Center to the north of the existing building along with a remodeling of approximately 4,750 square feet of the existing Center and jail. Chairperson Boersma stated this item was before the BHPC on February 8, 2018, and was tabled with a request for additional information. Rules of Conduct: Boersma provided the BHPC standards and instructions for public code of conduct in the public forum portion of the evening primarily because this will be an opportunity for public comment. At the last meeting, there was a fair amount of comment by the County and Sheriff’s Administration to provide background and information about operations. The BHPC will not be revisiting that tonight, so there is plenty of time for public comment. Only new information will be considered tonight and the discussion whether the project, as proposed, meets or does not meet the Standards (Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation). Boersma read the following instructions: “It is the practice of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission to provide a neutral public forum for the Citizens of Brookings to voice both support and/or opposition to a building-owner’s application. The 11.1 review process is intended to provide an objective metric of the applicant’s consideration of and adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as called for in SDCL, with the explicit goal of minimizing harm to historically significant structures, landscapes, and districts. The goal is to allow every individual opportunity to speak, while still maintaining the order required of a public meeting, and being respectful of everyone’s time. 1.) Everyone planning to speak – please sign in on the sheet with your first and last name so that it can be spelled correctly in the minutes, if necessary. 2.) Please keep your comments succinct and to the point. 3.) Please do not speak out of turn or interrupt another member of the public or the applicant. The meeting will proceed in the following order: 1.) Staff will provide a brief introduction to the case report for the commission members and public. The applicant will have opportunity to present the additional information for the case report or specific details relevant to the information requested. The Chair asked that the applicant does read the slides provided. If there are specific things to note, let us point those out quickly. 2.) The Commission members will ask any clarifying questions of the applicant directly. 3.) The floor will be opened for public comment, beginning with proponents of the applicant’s proposed design, followed by opponents of the applicant’s proposed design. 4.) Once the public forum concludes, the floor will be closed and the commission will determine whether to A.) Agree with the findings of the case report, B.) Disagree with the findings of the Case Report, C.) Table any recommendation, pending additional documentation from the applicant or research by the BHPC, or D.) Abstain from any official comment.” Staff Comments: Thornes, BHPC Program Manager, provided opening remarks. On February 8, the BHPC made a motion requesting additional information and that is what is before the Commission tonight for consideration. February 8, 2018 BHPC Action: The case report was initially heard by the BHPC at their February 8, 2018 meeting. After hearing from the applicant, proponents, and opponents, the BHPC made the following motion: “A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Heiberger, to table any action on the Brookings County Jail Expansion as there is not significant enough information to make a comment. In order to take action on this matter, the Historic Preservation Commission requests the applicant provide the following information: 1) The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs; 2) The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report; 3) Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project; and 4) Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative. All present voted yes; motion carried.” The materials were submitted on May 26th for review at tonight’s meeting.NOTE: The information was submitted past the published deadline for agenda materials. However, after consulting with staff and input from the City Manager, the BHPC executive committee agreed to accept it late. County Commissioner were notified of this decision. Applicant: Chairperson Boersma opened it up for the applicant, specifically to point out anything that is material to the conversation tonight that is new and/or not included in the handouts or specific items of note that you want to make sure to highlight. Bruce Schwartman, BKD, explained the additional information provided helps to clarify information previously presented, and to clarify the changes in some numbers. He stressed the tremendous operational impact when the courts and jails are separate. The Sheriff’s Office staff has also looked at efficiencies during peak times. The reality is, with every SD County they talked to, there is a long-term operational implication if those facilities are separated. One needs to consider if the County were to build a new facility offsite, it would be an entirely different project. To build a new facility offsite would increase the cost of the project significantly. Jails are very expensive projects for a variety of reasons: security devices, electronics, hardness of facility to have inmates not get out of or get in to, fewer providers of specialty equipment required for jails, etc. The additional information also addressed the setbacks, the height analysis, and such. A series of meetings have been held to wash out design options. He understands the sensitivity, desire, and direction of all parties involved. At the end of the day, Schwartzman sees the Historical Commission as a partner in the final product. This direction engages all parties, if and when the project continues. Public Hearing/Comment: Proponent Comment: Boersma asked for proponent comment of the project, in favor of the project as proposed. No one spoke as a proponent of the application or project. Opponent Comment: Boersma asked for opponent (against) comment on the project. Pat Fishback, 423 8th Street, stated she does not believe all feasible alternatives have been pursued as to where the jail expansion could be located. One option other counties are using is to locate their jails offsite from their courthouses. They include a courtroom in those offsite jails, so it is not the prisoners who travel, but the judge who travels and holds court in the jail. She does not believe financial information has been provided on this option. It appears it would save on costs of transporting prisoners, and costs of design and materials for the building as it would not need to be compatible with the Courthouse. There is no doubt the County Jail needs expansion. Several months have been spent on the interior plan for the jail, which is set and ready to go and can be located anywhere in the County. We now know the County’s needs and the building required is larger than what can be accommodated reasonably in the Courthouse greenspace. There are two renderings of what can take place on the historic Courthouse square. This brings up a couple areas of concern. 1) At this point in the process, the applicant was to provide one plan to BHPC to be acted upon. That plan was to say this is what is going to happen in that area. The fact that two versions are presented adds to the general sense of not being able to know what to expect from one meeting to another. There is an unpredictability as to the applicant’s plans and actions. So whatever the BHPC acts on at this meeting, cannot be predicted of what will be built on the site. Fishback urged the BHPC to vote no on the applicant’s request. Yvonne Fetzer, 724 4th Street, stated Sheriff Stanwick had stated previously that the County foresees only 30 more years of use for the current Courthouse. She does not understand why a major expansion would be built onsite if only using the Courthouse for the next 30 years. Doug Carruthers letter submitted 6/14/2018. Read into the record by Heiberger. “I regret not being able to attend tonight’s meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee to voice my opposition to the current plan for the County Jail expansion. I would appreciate if the following could be read into the public record. The jail, as it stands today, is an example of the failure of past boards and committees to protect what is a centerpiece of the architectural and historic character of our community. A continued approval of plans which hide, detract and distort the courthouse structure from the original design would represent a failure on the part of this committee to protect this community’s future self from its current needs for expediency and what is ultimately a minor cost savings. It is my view that the following points make any plan to expand the jail on the site untenable from the perspective of historic preservation. 1. Aesthetic and Historical Character: The Courthouse is a central square courthouse built purposefully with symmetry and placed in the center of a large lot. The very character of the building is predicated upon visual balance and the open space in which it was meant to set. Much as a cathedral encompasses a vast volume of empty space to inspire awe and draw the eye towards the heavens, a central courthouse is designed to command a large open space with unencumbered views which impress upon those who pass the importance of the structure and the activities it houses. 2. Useful Life: A 45 year life span on a jail expansion surrounding a historic courthouse should be a red flag not a feature for the determination of whether it is wise for the HPC to endorse this project. The courthouse is the facility which the committee is charged with protecting and as a courthouse, its useful life will be outstripped with time and caseload. According to the meeting notes of February 8th (pg 6), Sheriff Stanwick estimates that this could occur as early as 30 years from now. 15 years prior to the end of the useful life of the new structure. 3. Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives: Objectively, if we consider these concepts in terms of long term impact to the historic structure, the continued expansion of the jail can never be reasonable or prudent because, in the medium and long term, the courthouse will not be able to satisfy its role as a courthouse and will need to be moved. At which time, the location of the expanded jail represents stranded investment and a burdensome cost to remove and return the courthouse to its original condition. The protection of this site requires an acknowledgment that we as a community dropped the ball in the past and allowed the original jail to expand in a way that is detrimental to the historic character and architectural intent of the structure to be protected. Continuing to act on bad precedent is not reasonable or prudent. If we maintain and care for it, our courthouse will remain for centuries to come. It is in this time frame we must consider the consequence of further development. ~ Doug Carruthers 705 4th Street Brookings, SD 57006” Schwartzman clarified there was only one single floor plan and one single site plan presented. The location of the walls was approved by the Variance Committee, as with the setback of the walls. That has never changed. However, they did do some different façade treatment massing arrangements, which was really an exercise in design materials, uses, and balancing proportions. The exterior design will continue to develop. BKD was never asked ultimately what the building will look like, which is still being determined by the County Commissioners. On the 30-year life of the current Courthouse, Schwartzman stated some additional information was submitted (#41, Section 5). The specific question asked of BKD was the timeframe needed for replacement, additional space, or if a phased approach expansion of the facility could be implemented, prudent, or as an alternative. Based on inmate population/trends, it was determined the new facility will accommodate inmate population for well over 45 years. The entire facility should last for over 50 years. (Willert arrived at 5:24 p.m.) Schwartzman clarified that he is not trying to be contrary. He appreciates the concerns addressed from a very educated and articulate community. He agrees the Courthouse setting is a historic Courthouse square, and has done some things to respect this. In the 1800’s the Courthouse square was a communal space. There were some images provided showing historic structures around the country where existing historic buildings have been attached/built on to. We are not attaching the building to the courthouse, but rather building adjacent to it. They are applying and abiding by the same rules and guidelines and respecting the existing building. For example, the new building elevation is stepped back from the west façade of the Courthouse. The current jail doesn’t respect or blend in any way with the Courthouse and its grounds. The goal of the project is to give a more uniform feel, to tie it together with the Courthouse, but not copy the historic significance of the Courthouse. The overall goal is to minimize the impact and to improve what is going on. Clearly, there are other things which could be looked at, such as additional space, adding a courtroom, etc. Everything added offsite adds cost to the project. Heiberger asked for a point of clarification on the two plans presented and what it is going to look like. When looking at the 11.1 application, checklist point #4 states “the site plan should clearly create a graphic representation of the building and any other elements that are part of the request.” Heiberger challenged this interpretation, and this commission from his perspective should vote on what this will look like. To clarify, Schwartzman stated as in 3.2, the proposed footprint is what is going to be done. The height/massing is going to stay the same. Yes, there are there will be some minor articulations to discuss. To penalize them about the massaging of the exterior is irrelevant. The footprint that is proposed is what the footprint is going to be. The final articulation of the materials, that will be decided as a community. Public comment portion closed. A motion was made by Brink, seconded by Willert, to disagree with the findings of the case report based on two major criteria: 1) the proposed addition doesn’t meet the majority of the standards for rehabilitation as well as the ARSD standards for new construction in historic districts, and 2) there are reasonable alternatives unexplored. Boersma agreed with Brink that the proposed addition doesn’t meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. It is in our best interest to clarify which standards to talk about. Boersma noted Standards 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 very clearly apply. Points of Standards 3 and 4 also apply. In consideration of additions/alterations on the block of the Courthouse, we have to consider the entirety of the block. It is explicitly stated in Standards 1 and 2, includes the property as a whole, including the site and the environment of its context, be considered. Due to the encroachment on the site, this project does not meet Standards 1 and 2. Brink stated the defining characteristic of the existing Courthouse is that it rests in the middle of the block. The condition of the existing jail is a no starter. Garcia Fritz added historically, the Courthouse was intended to be a communal space, and today is a civic space. The environment surrounds the Courthouse, but it also extends into the historic district, surrounded by houses and institutional buildings. The Courthouse mitigates the different scales, from residential to institutional, through this buffer zone. This is the civic space that cities are intended to have. Exterior spaces are being encroached upon with this. Boersma recognized the commission is charged with preserving and maintaining the character defining features of a property as a whole. Reading the nomination forms for the Brookings Courthouse and Courthouses across the state of SD, there is a blanket nomination for all Courthouses listed in SD. One of the things to point out is the majority of Courthouses in SD are not built as a central feature on a historic Courthouse square. This makes Brookings Courthouse unique and distinct and is an important character defining feature topreserve. Garcia Fritz added the importance of the symmetry and balance of the site. In the elevation renderings, the symmetry/balance is thrown off with the proposed building. Boersma stated parts of Standards 1, 2, 3 and 4 apply. It is the property as a whole. The distinctive materials of the Courthouse itself doesn’t include the whole property. The distinctive features (#5) includes exterior and interior features. Standards 6, 7, and 8 do not apply to this project, as they are geared towards restoration of the Courthouse proper or significant archeological resources, which there probably aren’t any. Standards 9 and 10 are specifically related to massing scale, proportion, etc., and are also specifically referenced in the Administrative Rules for SD. In looking at the ARSD Rules in conjunction with Standard 9, must be considered. When looking at the ARSD component, specifically compatibility of design (#1), must be careful on understanding the massing and scale in light of the recent demolition in a Sioux Falls historic district. BHPC does not want to be in that position of improper massing. Item #10 speaks to setting, and the entirety of the block. Garcia Fritz stated everything is working within the 10% rule. ARSD #1 clarifies how new construction relates to the existing building. The overall appearance shouldn’t dominate or distract from the existing building, the Courthouse. The interior standards go further with new construction, stating it should be distinct enough from the Courthouse so as it shouldn’t distract from it. The exterior options are important in these decisions. Boersma commented the dominance on the block relevant to adjacent properties. The Sapienza House/Court Case in Sioux Falls’ McKennan Park is an important part, an important precedence, and reflects on the holistic nature of the entire neighborhood and historic district. Brink stated there is no way around it, this proposed building would dominate the Courthouse square. Boersma questioned Standard #10, the ability to remove a structure to restore a building to its original intent, as the proposed building is not attached to the Courthouse, or completely integrated into the Courthouse itself. The other part of the motion was the idea of feasible and prudent alternatives, which is very specific to the way SD evaluates historic preservation proposals. Kuhl commented the offsite location is $3.8 million more than the proposed new construction. Over the course of 20 years, that $3.8 million doesn’t seem significant enough to remove that option from the table. Brink added prudent alternatives are not primarily or solely based on financial means. Boersma brought up the 2013 Marty Jackley Attorney General Opinion which specifically addresses two things which have been an integral part of the conversation thus far: economic feasibility and operational convenience. Archibald vs. Hennepin County (1993) is one of the major court cases referenced in the AG opinion. In Jackley’s Attorney General Opinion, an alternative was considered imprudent only if it presented unique problems of cost revenue community disruption that reached “extraordinary magnitudes.” The $3.8 million over 20 years isn’t an extraordinary magnitude. Economic considerations alone didn’t justify the destruction of a historic property because of the increase cost of transporting the inmates from the jail to the courthouse by bus or van, and did not qualify as extreme hardship. Attorney General Jackley has stated historic preservation trumps economic feasibility, unless it is an extreme hardship. Operational convenience. Alternative sites were also discussed in the Hennepin County case, even if those sites didn’t provide every convenience of an onsite operation. Operational convenience and economic feasibility, under the auspices of feasible and prudent alternatives, don’t negate our responsibility to protect the Courthouse square as a whole. Schwartzman asked when the lawsuit docs were being identified in the Hennepin County case, did they look at demolishing the building? Boersma responded the Attorney General Opinion was looking at the demolition of an existing building to create a jail. In our case, we are not looking at the demolition of a building, but the destruction of the integrity of a historic site, a historic resource. The Chair asked if for public comment on the motion. No additional public comments were made. The official comment will include the BHPC’s comments regarding the Secretary of the Interior Standards ACTION: On the motion to disagree with the findings of the case report based on two major criteria: 1) the proposed addition doesn’t meet the majority of the standards for rehabilitation as well as the ARSD standards for new construction in historic districts, and 2) there are prudent and feasible alternatives unexplored. The official comments to the State Historic Preservation Office will also include a letter outlining the BHPC’s opinion regarding compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (SDAR 24:52:07:02), compliance with ARSD Standards New Construction and Additions in Historic Districts (SDAR 24:52:07:04), New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts), compliance with SDLRC Rule 24:52:07:03 Standards for Case Report, and additional analysis of prudent and feasible alternatives that were not explored. All present voted yes; motion carried. PROJECT/ISSUE UPDATES &REPORTS A.Events/Special Projects 1)2018 Mayor’s Awards. Press Releases are due mid-July. The Mayor’s Award presentation will be held in conjunction with the ABLE Awards for Accessibility, Butler Human Rights Award and Mayor’s Generational Leadership Award on August 30th at McCrory Gardens from 5-7 pm, with a program at 6pm. A motion was made by Heiberger, seconded by Garcia Fritz, to approve the following winners: o 1110 3rd St. (LaJoie) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Heiberger) o 835 6th Ave. (garage addition) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Boersma or Merriman) o 310 Main Ave. (Carrot Seed interior) – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Kuhl) o Chuck Cecil – Historic Preservation Achievement (Boersma) o 501-503 Main Ave. – interior and exterior (Willert) o Carnegie Library – Excellence in Rehabilitation (Garcia Fritz) o Episcopal Church – Stewardship (Gritzner) 2) NAPC Conference & Award Event. Boersma, Brink, Thornes, Merriman, and Gritzner are attending the conference. The entire delegation will accept the National Award for Commission Excellence at the Friday night Awards Ceremony. An announcement of the Award will be made at the Mayor’s Awards Reception with a press release issued following the National Conference. 3) August 25 th Combined Event. This is a celebration of accessibility, local foods, sustainability, etc., with six volunteer groups working together encouraging people to stay in Brookings. Need to set up an information tent with details of the various events of the day. B.BHPC Liaisons 1) Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (Boersma & Garcia Fritz) Boersma shared the committee is not actively meeting at this time. The Mayor does not want to disband the committee, as they will need to reconvene every 3-4 years and evaluate changes, movements, etc. A change to intensity-based planning system will be made, which will effect some related Ordinances in the future. 2) Public Arts Commission. No report as meeting was cancelled. 3) Downtown (Kuhl) C.State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1)Sofia Mattesini has been hired as the southeast CLG region program coordinator. Board of Trustees quarterly meeting will be held 7/13. D.Executive Committee/Staff 1)St. Paul’s Episcopal Church June 17th event. Boersma to speak at the program. 2)BHPC members attended June 15th Rotary presentation about Pioneer Girl by Nancy Tystad Koupal. Brian Gatzke sponsored the BHPC as his guests. 3)Hartinger Barn has been listed on State Register of Historic Places. https://brookingsregister.com/article/hartinger-barn-listed-on-sd-register-of-historic- places 4)City 2018-2023 Strategic Plan update. The City Council is having a special meeting on 6/19/2018 to identify priorities. 5)2018/2019 National Park Service Funding update. BHPC has received a grant for a Preservation Plan (2018-2019). Nory Winter & Co. out of Denver, CO., premier consultants in the country, have been hired to assist. 6)11.1 Reviews & Inquires 426 Main Avenue, second floor window replacement – pending submittal Discussion of Armory at a City Council study session. The Armory will be on the July 24th City Council Special Study Session. The Study Session will begin at 4:00 p.m., with a Budget Session starting at 5:00 p.m. Bungalows status. Habitat for Humanity has declined the gift of the bungalows from SDSU Foundation due to the amount of lead in the houses. Thornes has talked with SDSU Foundation on what to do if find someone else to take the houses. If don’t find someone to take the houses, and looking at demolition, a new application will need to be submitted. Thornes will visit with SHPO for more details. It was noted SDSU Foundation has also purchased the Simpsons house, located north of the stucco apartments. Can see this house as possibly demolished in the future. 2 Habitat for Humanity lots located in the Central District. The bank has donated these lots to Habitat for Humanity. Question was asked if the bank would take the SDSU Foundation Bungalows. Not known at this time. It is safe to assume Habitat will not give up the two lots. The lot on 8 th Ave. is reviewable. However, the 3rd St. lot buts up against the 8th Ave. lot and doesn’t touch the district, making it not reviewable. Inquiry regarding Woodbine Cottage colors. Jane Dunn, SDSU President Dunn’s wife, has asked about Woodbine Cottage and changing the colors. 7)Sioux Falls’ McKennan Park demolition. Brink commented she watched the demolition feed, and sees a huge misunderstanding of what actually happened. 8)Meetings to be scheduled: Public relations Public education. Executive committee 9)Possible action to reschedule July BHPC meeting date. A doodle poll will be sent for availability. 10)Ordinance regarding window replacement The City’s Building Official and City Engineer agree an Ordinance change is needed. 11)BHPC Vacancy. Press Release to be sent. E.Calendar June 16-18, 2018 - St. Paul’s Episcopal 100 th Anniversary Event July 18-22, 2018 - NAPC Forum, Des Moines August 30, 2018 - Combined Mayor’s Award event Oct 2-3, 2018 - Growing Sustainable Communities Conference, Dubuque Nov 13-16, 2018 - National Trust Conference, San Francisco Meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Submitted by Bonnie Foster MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Sandro, Gustav 0. A History of Brookings County Prior to 1900 M.A. Thesis. ———— ———— ————————— than 3H 3GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY UTM REFERENCES A|l. 4| I 6j 7. 51 8. 5, 01 I4.9i0f8l3i2,0) ZONE EASTING NORTHING Cl . I I I . I . , I I . I , I . . I . I . , ZONE EASTINGp|•; I I I-. I v".NORTHING 1,1,1,, VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE CODE COUNTY CODE STATE CODE COUNTY CODE FORM PREPARED BY NAME/TITLE Edith French, Surveyor ORGANIZATION DATE Historical Preservation Center STREET & NUMBER USD Alumni House TELEPHONE 605/677-5314 CITY OR TOWN STATE Vermillion South Dakota STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS: NATIONAL__ STATE___ LOCAL As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and ce^ify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Par/Sfenjice. GPO 892-453 01 SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD —PREHISTORIC —1400-1499 —1500-1599 —1600-1699 —1700-1799 —1800-1899 AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW _ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC _ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _AGRICULTURE lllARCHITECTURE _ART —COMMERCE —COMMUNICATIONS —COMMUNITY PLANNING —CONSERVATION —ECONOMICS —EDUCATION —ENGINEERING —EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT —INDUSTRY —INVENTION —LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE —LAW —LITERATURE —MILITARY —MUSIC —PHILOSOPHY _^OLITICS/GOVERNMENT —RELIGION —SCIENCE —SCULPTURE —SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN _THEATER —TRANSPORTATION —OTHER (SPECIFY) SPECIFIC DATES 1912 BUILDER/ARCHITECT STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Brookings County Courthouse is representative of the court houses built around the turn of the century for two reasons: (1) it incorporated a Renaissance Revival design, and (2) its location is the result of a county seat dispute involving several small towns. The Renaissance Revival was a popular style in this area for public buildings during^the 1890's and «arly 1900's. Like the Brookings County Courthouse, many were constructed of limestone. Brookings received the county seat designation permanently after an election on November 4, 1879, when it received over two- thirds of the votes cast. Other contenders were Volga and Aurora. In 1912, a new courthouse was erected in Brookings by the J.B. Nel- sen Construction Company and designed by architects C.E. Bell, Tyr.ie, and Chapman. From 1912 to the present the building has housed county offices. DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _EXCELLENT _DETERIORATED ^UNALTERED X-ORIGINAL SITE JfeOQD _RUINS .-ALTERED _MOVED DATE. _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Renaissance Revival style Brookings County Courthouse is three stories tall and made of limestone. A large cupola is centered on top of the building, which is three bays wide and five bays long. First floor windows are rectangular with three arched radiating voussoirs. Windows on the second floor are also rectangular, but they are topped with transoms. Third floor openings appear in sets of three encased in an arch. A single set of large triple windows are fixed in the middle bay of the rear (east) facade between the top of the third floor and the top of the second floor windows. The middle bay on the front (west) facade features the ground floor entrance, fluted Ionic pilasters running the heighth of the second and third floors, and a triangular attic above the top floor. Each of these features is decorated with cut stone. Cut stone modi 11 ions encircle the courthouse be neath the cornice. Modern glass doors have been installed in the front and back entrances. No other modernizations detract from the building's appearance. The courthouse rests in the middle of a square block. It shares the property with a jail and sheriff's residence currently under construction. The courthouse is in good condition and continues to dominate the block. Form No. 10-300 g.'VO'1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM t; \: ;.\ i ;* V H *- Tyru/i oHL-LQ i <rr" •ii~ I- SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS __________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ | NAME HISTORIC Brookings County Courthouse AND/OR COMMON _____Brookings County Courthouse LOCATION STREET & NUMBER (3 .NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN Brookinqs STATE South Dakota __ VICINITY OF CODE (MLR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT No. 1 COUNTY CODE Brookinqs Oil CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY —DISTRICT _X.BUILDING(S) —STRUCTURE —SITE —OBJECT OWNERSHIP JLPUBLIC —PRIVATE —BOTH PUBLIC ACQUISITION _IN PROCESS —BEING CONSIDERED STATUS —KOCCUPIED —UNOCCUPIED —WORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE —YES: RESTRICTED _*YES: UNRESTRICTED —NO PRESENT USE _AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM —COMMERCIAL —PARK —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —JfeOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —MILITARY —OTHER: OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME _____Brookings County STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN Brookinqs VICINITY OF STATE South Dakota LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC.City Hall STREET & NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE South Dakota REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE South Dakota Historic Sites Survey DATE June 1974 —FEDERAL JLSTATE __COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FORSURVEYRECORDS Historical Preservation Center CITY. TOWN Vermin ion STATE South Dakota v«, iftf•mi1rirS«^»-^i111i u 9"T^^T^ '." <r^7f7T-l7-y^yv->-*-^] ^^*'^^>^"1^j3a^y!_^;•it./?' III Itrr:I / J*^*-'™iJ~^<C7*~r-**-J~ Y ^*' --».. -p,~! t-1 Brookings Historic Preservation Commission Angela Boersma, Chair Carrie Kuhl, Vice Chair Leah Brink Jessica Garcia Fritz Janet Gritzner Greg Heiberger Janet Merriman Dennis Willert July 31, 2018 Ms. Kate Nelson Restoration Specialist/Architectural Historian Division of Review & Compliance State Historic Preservation Office 900 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501 RE:Official comment pursuant to SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Brookings County Detention Center Addition, 314 6th Avenue & 315 7th Avenue Dear Ms. Nelson, The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission (BHPC) has reviewed Brookings County’s case report dated January 19, 2018, which supports an expansion to the Brookings County Courthouse to construct a new Law Enforcement Center (LEC) and jail facility. On June 14, 2018, the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to disagree with the findings of the case report and supplemental information, citing the project does not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (SDAR 24:52:07:02)or the standards of State of South Dakota Administrative Rules (SDAR)24:52:07:04 New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts and that there are prudent and feasible alternatives, as required by SDLRC Rule 24:52:07:03 Standards for Case Report,which have not been considered by the applicant. During its regular February 8, 2018 meeting, the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the case report with members of the Brookings County Commission, the Brookings County Sheriff, the applicant’s architecture team,and members of the public present. As a result of the meeting, the BHPC requested additional information as noted in the meeting minutes. Specifically the BHPC requested further information on: 1. The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include construction, operational and other investment costs; 2. The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report; Kate Nelson July 31, 2018 Page 2 3. Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the proposed project; and 4. Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative. The additional information to the case report was submitted on May 26, 2018. NOTE: The information was submitted past the BHPC’s published deadline for agenda materials. However, after consulting with staff and input from the City Manager, the BHPC executive committee agreed to accept it late. Brookings County officials were notified of this decision. The BHPC reviewed the case report and additional information at its June 14, 2018 meeting with members of the Brookings County Commission, Brookings County Sheriff, the applicant’s architecture team, and members of the public present for comment. In the January 19th case report, Brookings County supports the construction of a new 17,500 square foot Law Enforcement Center (LEC) and jail expansion to the north and west of the historic county courthouse and remodeling of the existing LEC and jail. The case report states that the new addition will not touch or connect to the existing courthouse with the closest wall sited 17 feet away and that the west façade will be held back approximately 6 feet from the farthest west façade of the courthouse building and justifies the construction of the building because there will be no detrimental effect on the aesthetics of the historic courthouse. The case report and supplement further justifies the addition based on the opinion that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives due to operational and economic considerations. The BHPC assessment of the justification provided in the case report is that: 1. The project to build an addition to the Brookings Courthouse does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or SDAR 24:52:07:04 New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts. 2. Feasible and prudent alternatives do exist for accommodating the needs of the Law Enforcement Center and jail that are not being considered by Brookings County. Further discussion of each of these points follows: 1. The project to build the addition does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation or SDAR 24:52:07:04 New Construction & Additions in Historic Districts. Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) 24:52:07:02 states: “The methods, policies, technical notes, preservation briefs, and guidelines used by the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior…are the methods to be used to protect state register properties. These methods are published in the Historic Preservation Fund Manual Appendices (2007) and in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, National Park Service, revised 1995.” The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for Rehabilitation apply to additions. Standards 1, 2, and 9 for Historic Rehabilitation state that: Kate Nelson July 31, 2018 Page 3 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Additionally SDAR 24:52:07:04 - Standards for New Construction and Additions in Historic Districts standards 1 and 10 are: (1) Compatibility of design. Massing, size, and scale of new construction must be compatible with surrounding historic buildings. Overall, architectural features of new construction must be of contemporary design, which does not directly mimic historic buildings. Architectural elements such as windows, doors, and cornices must be similar in rhythm, pattern, and scale to comparable elements in adjacent historic buildings. The overall visual appearance of new construction may not dominate or be distracting to the surrounding historic landscape; (10) Setting. The relationship of new buildings or additions to existing buildings must maintain the traditional placement of historic buildings in relation to streets, sidewalks, natural topography, and lot lines The proposed project does not meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation numbers 1, 2, and 9 and SDAR 24:52:07:04 number 1 and 10 because the proposed project will impact on the characteristic and space of the site as a whole, dominate the block in terms of overall scale and proportion, and infill a significant portion of the historically important civic green space surrounding the courthouse. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation numbers 1 and 2 and SDAR 24:52:04:04 standards 1 and 10, specifically address the site, space, historic landscape, and setting of the historic property. Although the proposed new construction does not connect to the existing courthouse, the addition’s impact to the courthouse site must be considered. One of the unique and distinct features of the Brookings courthouse as compared to other South Dakota historic courthouses is the historic courthouse square. That the “courthouse rests in the middle of a square block…and continues to dominate the block” is noted as a defining characteristic of the courthouse in the 1976 National Register of Historic (NRHP) Inventory Form for the courthouse. Architecturally, there is historic importance in the symmetry and balance of the site. Although there is an existing addition, it is on the back of the building and does not encroach on the visual appearance seen from the front or west elevation. The existing addition maintains the appearance that the courthouse is in the middle of the block. Historically, the courthouse, within its large block, was intended to be a communal spacefor the citizens of the city, and continues that function today as a civic space where the farmers market and numerous other events are hosted. The proposed project would occupy the entire northeast corner of the block, eliminating Kate Nelson July 31, 2018 Page 4 the centered presence, symmetry, and balance, and encroaching upon the communal/civic space that defines the courthouse site. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation number 9 and SDAR 24:52:04:04 standard 1 stipulate that massing and scale of a project must protect the historic integrity and be compatible with the property and its environment. The proposed project as shown in page 10 of attachment 6 is 100 feet across on the western side and 190 feet across on its northern side as opposed to the courthouse, which is 107 feet along its western side and 72 feet along its northern side. These dimensions provide a footprint in the addition of 17,500 square feet as opposed to the courthouse footprint of less than 9,000 square feet and overshadows the entire northern and eastern sides of the courthouse. Therefore the massing and scale of the proposed project does not meet the requirements set forth in Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation number 9 and SDAR 24:52:04:04 standard 1. The Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings published in 2017 specifically recommends on page 156 against “constructing a new addition that is as large as or larger than the historic building, which visually overwhelms it.” 2. Feasible and prudent alternatives do exist for accommodating the needs of the law enforcement center and jail that have been eliminated by Brookings County. Brookings County has discounted off-site options to build a new LEC and jail and justified the decision based on the needs of the criminal justice system and upon economic considerations. It is the BHPC’s opinion that the off-site options should be considered as they meet the definitions of prudent and feasible provided in the December 17, 2013 Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinion. The County case report states on page 17, that the benefits of using the existing courthouse site for the new LEC and jail include a minimal increase to staff operational and overall project cost, and that it maintains department operational efficiency and the ability of the sheriff’s office to provide emergency backup assistance. Statements by the county’s architectural team during the February 8th BHPC meeting specifically indicated that the operational cost and efficiency gained by placing the jail at the courthouse site would be due to not having to transport inmates between an off-site jail and courthouse. The AG Memorandum specifically refers to case law, Archibal v. County of Hennepin, concerning a jail addition upon a historic site, in which the court ruled that it was feasible to safely transport inmates between alternative jail sites and the courthouse in busses or vans instead of the proposed demolition of a historic facility so that the jail and the courthouse could be co-located with a tunnel in between them to facilitate inmate transport. As stated in the AG Memorandum, after a reviewing authority makes a prima facie determination that a proposed project will adversely impact an historic property, the burden shifts to the project proponent to show the absence of feasible and prudent alternatives. To meet this burden a permit must consider all reasonable alternative plans to the proposed project, not just the least expensive option. The County’s additional information provided to the case report shows that the construction for the proposed project will cost $12.6M with off-site options Kate Nelson July 31, 2018 Page 5 costing $14.2M and that increased yearly operational costs due to increased staffing and other requirements for the proposed project would be $1.1M with the off-site options costing up to $1.4M. The Archibal case also determined that “economic considerations alone” did not justify demolition of a historic facility because the increased costs associated with transporting defendants from the jail to the courthouse of van “did not…create an economic hardship.” A simple economic analysis, which does not account for inflation and uses a 45 year project life as provided by the county in its additional information,indicates that the increased construction and operational cost for an off-site option would be less than $350K annually. Brookings County has not explained in its case report why these costs are considered economically imprudent or prohibitive and therefore has not met the burden of proof requirement. It is the opinion of the Brookings Historical Preservation Commission that Brookings County’s proposed project to build a 17,500 sf LEC and jail addition on the site of the Brookings courthouse would significantly impact the historic character of the courthouse and historic courthouse square setting. The proposed project’s location, massing, and scale would result in the facility dominating the entire northeast corner of the block. This new massive presence would eliminate the centered presence, symmetry and balance, and encroach upon the communal/civic space that defines the courthouse site, therefore not meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and SDAR 24:52:07:04.The Brookings County Commission has defended their proposed project by citing operational and lowest cost economic considerations. As the AG Memorandum states, preservation often entails higher costs, and economic and operational efficiencies do not therefore eliminate higher costed options as unfeasible or imprudent. The court’s decision in Archibal v. County of Hennepin supports BHPC’s position for a case similar to the proposed project. The public has expressed their concerns about the jail expansion addition as noted in the February 8, 2018 and June 14, 2018 meeting minutes of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission. Given the above and pursuant to ARSD 24:52:07:03(10), the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission does not agree with the findings of the case report and submits these comments to object to construction of a Law Enforcement Center and jail addition on the site of the Brookings County Courthouse. Sincerely, Angela Boersma, Chair Brookings Historic Preservation Commission Kate Nelson July 31, 2018 Page 6 Brookings Historic Preservation Commission Official Comment on Brookings County Detention Center Addition Attachments: 1. Application from BKV Group, November 13, 2017 2. City’s Notification to SHPO of proposed project, November 14, 2017 3. State Historic Preservation Office response requesting case report, November 16, 2017 4. Case Report Submittal, dated January 19, 2018, received by City on January 22, 2018 5. BHPC Minutes/public comments (approved) February 8, 2018 6. Case Report Addendum, no date, received May 26, 2018 7. BHPC Minutes/public comments (unapproved) June 14, 2018 8. Office of the Attorney General Memorandum Opinionon SDCL 11.1 Reviews, 12/17/2013 9. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the Brookings County Courthouse, 1976