HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_02_09 CC PKTCity Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. – Work Session
6:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting
Mission Statement:
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.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION (NOTE OFF-SITE LOCATION)
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Tour of Brookings Regional Humane Society Facility.
2. City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports.
3. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. *
4. Council Invites & Obligations.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for
action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A
majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Record of Council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Approval of minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 17-10, a Resolution declaring official intent to reimburse.
D. Action on Resolution No. 18-10, a Resolution Fixing Time and Place for Hearing
Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR (2009
Sidewalk Repair Sites).
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-10, a Resolution Authorizing Agreement for
Professional Services for Airport Wildlife Fence A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010, Helms
& Associates, Aberdeen, SD.
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.
Presentations, Special Requests/Invites & Reports:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
Informational
1
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Contract Awards/Change Orders:
7. Action on Resolution No. 20-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1
(CCO#1) to 2009-05STI SDSU Innovation Campus Infrastructure Phase II, Bowes
Construction Company, Inc.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
8. Action on Resolution No. 21-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2
(CCO#2 Final) For 2009-08STI Street Maintenance and Overlay Project, Bowes
Construction Inc.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Ordinance First Readings:
9. Ordinance No. 02-10 Budget Amendment #1: Authorizing a Supplemental
Appropriation to the 2010 Budget for the Purpose of Providing for Additional Funds for
the Operation of the City.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
10. Ordinance No. 03-10: An Ordinance Amending Section 78-38 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To The Use Of
Municipal Sales, Service And Use Tax Revenue In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
11. Ordinance No. 04-10: An application for a conditional use to establish a Contractors
Shop and Storage Yard in the Business B-3 District (623 Henry Avenue).
Public Hearing: February 23rd
12. Ordinance No. 05-10: A petition to rezone Lots 128, 129A, 129B, 130A, 130B, 131A
and 131B, Onaka Village, Indian Hills Addition from a Residence R-2 District to a
Residence R-3 District (Crystal Ridge Rd and Dakota Trail area) .
Public Hearing: February 23rd
13. Ordinance No. 06-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
fences.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
14. Ordinance No. 07-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
accessory buildings.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
15. Ordinance No. 08-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
access drives.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
16. Ordinance No. 09-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
brewpubs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
2
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
17. Ordinance No. 10-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to signs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
Second Readings/Public Hearings
18. Ordinance No. 01-10: An Ordinance Amending Article I. of Chapter 6 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
on Sunday by the Off-Sale Licensee in the City of Brookings.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to approve – Roll Call
Other Business:
19. Action on Resolution No. 16-10, a Resolution in Support of State Planning and Research
Program Application.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Presentation and possible action on location for Youth Sporting Center/Nature Park
Project.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Action on Resolution No. 22-10, a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Real
Property for the Intergovernmental Administration Building; Authorizing the
Expenditure of Funds for the Purchase of the Real Property, and Authorizing the
Documents to Effectuate the Terms and Intent of this Resolution
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
22. Executive Session for purposes of consulting with legal counsel on pending contractual
matters.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave session –voice vote
23. Possible action on Resolution No. 23-10, pertaining to executive session contractual
matters.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
24. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council
Tim Reed, Mayor
Mike Bartley, Deputy Mayor & Council Member
Tom Bezdichek, Council Member
John Kubal, Council Member
Mike McClemans, Council Member
Jael Thorpe, Council Member
Julie Whaley, Council Member
Council Staff:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Steven Britzman, City Attorney
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday @ 1pm, Thursday @ 7 pm, Friday @ 9 pm, and Saturday @ 1 pm.
The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org
If you require assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please
contact Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at 692-6281 at least 3 working days prior to the meeting.
3
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council
on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to
introduce topics.
1. Tour of the Brookings Regional Humane Society Facility.
The Brookings City Council will tour the Brookings Regional Humane
Society Facility located at 1027 South Main Avenue. The public and media
are invited to attend.
4
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council
on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to
introduce topics.
2. City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports.
Pursuant to council direction, “City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports” will be a
standing agenda item at all Council Work Sessions. The Council Members that serve as
Ex-Officio members on the Brookings Health System Board and Utility Board will
provide verbal reports regarding recent meetings they have attended.
Utility Board: Council Members Bezdichek and Kubal
Health Systems Board: Council Members Whaley and Thorpe
5
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council
on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to
introduce topics.
3. 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 starting the issue,
requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
6
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council
on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to
introduce topics.
4. Council Invites & Obligations.
Date
Day
Event &
Brief Description
Time
Location
Town
Address
Directions
February 10th
Wednesday
Dacotah Bank Open
House Reception
5:00 p.m. – 7:00
p.m.
1441 6th Street
February 17th
Wednesday
City Council Strategic
Goal Setting
5 to 7 pm
Swiftel Center
February 18th
Thursday
City Council Strategic
Goal Setting
8:30 am to 4:30
pm
Swiftel Center
February 18th
Thursday
Business Day at the
Legislature (SD
Chamber of
Commerce &
Industry)
March 13-17th
Sunday –
Wednesday
NLC – Congressional
City Conference
Washington, DC
March 15th
Monday
Board of Equalization
hearings
9:00 a.m. – 9:000
p.m.
City Hall
March 31- April
1st
Wednesday –
Thursday
Annual SD Airports
Conference
Deadwood Gulch
Gaming Resort
Deadwood, SD
Sept. 23-25
Thursday –
Saturday
NLC 18th Annual
Leadership Summit
“Leading the Charge
in Local Government”
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Nov. 29 – Dec.
4th
Monday –
Saturday
NLC-Congress of
Cities
Denver, CO
7
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Record of Council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Approval of minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 17-10, a Resolution declaring official intent to reimburse.
D. Action on Resolution No. 18-10, a Resolution Fixing Time and Place for Hearing
Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR (2009
Sidewalk Repair Sites).
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-10, a Resolution Authorizing Agreement for
Professional Services for Airport Wildlife Fence A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010, Helms
& Associates, Aberdeen, SD.
Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations, Special Requests/Invites & Reports:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
Contract Awards/Change Orders:
7. Action on Resolution No. 20-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1
(CCO#1) to 2009-05STI SDSU Innovation Campus Infrastructure Phase II, Bowes
Construction Company, Inc.
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
8. Action on Resolution No. 21-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2
(CCO#2 Final) For 2009-08STI Street Maintenance and Overlay Project, Bowes
Construction Inc.
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Ordinance First Readings:
9. Ordinance No. 02-10 Budget Amendment #1: Authorizing a Supplemental
Appropriation to the 2010 Budget for the Purpose of Providing for Additional Funds for
the Operation of the City.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
10. Ordinance No. 03-10: An Ordinance Amending Section 78-38 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To The Use Of
Municipal Sales, Service And Use Tax Revenue In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
11. Ordinance No. 04-10: An application for a conditional use to establish a Contractors
Shop and Storage Yard in the Business B-3 District (623 Henry Avenue).
Public Hearing: February 23rd
12. Ordinance No. 05-10: A petition to rezone Lots 128, 129A, 129B, 130A, 130B, 131A
and 131B, Onaka Village, Indian Hills Addition from a Residence R-2 District to a
Residence R-3 District (Crystal Ridge Rd and Dakota Trail area) .
Public Hearing: February 23rd
13. Ordinance No. 06-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
fences.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
8
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
14. Ordinance No. 07-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
accessory buildings .
Public Hearing: February 23rd
15. Ordinance No. 08-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
access drives.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
16. Ordinance No. 09-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to
brewpubs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
17. Ordinance No. 10-10: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to signs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
Second Readings/Public Hearings
18. Ordinance No. 01-10: An Ordinance Amending Article I. of Chapter 6 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages
on Sunday by the Off-Sale Licensee in the City of Brookings.
City Manager Introduction, Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve – Roll Call
Other Business:
19. Action on Resolution No. 16-10, a Resolution in Support of State Planning and Research
Program Application.
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Presentation and possible action on location for Youth Sporting Center/Nature Park
Project.
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Action on Resolution No. 22-10, a Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Real
Property for the Intergovernmental Administration Building; Authorizing the
Expenditure of Funds for the Purchase of the Real Property, and Authorizing the
Documents to Effectuate the Terms and Intent of this Resolution
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
22. Executive Session for purposes of consulting with legal counsel on pending contractual
matters.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote, Motion to leave session –voice vote
23. Possible action on Resolution No. 23-10, pertaining to executive session contractual
matters.
City Manager Introduction, Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
24. Adjourn.
9
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Approval of minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 17-10, a resolution declaring official
intent to reimburse.
D. Action on Resolution No. 18-10, a Resolution Fixing Time and
Place for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk
Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR (2009 Sidewalk Repair
Sites).
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-10, a Resolution Authorizing
Agreement for Professional Services for Airport Wildlife Fence
A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010, Helms & Associates, Aberdeen,
SD.
*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.
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
10
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA #4
B. Approval of the City Council minutes.
The draft January 26th Brookings City Council minutes are enclosed for Council review
and approval.
11
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Brookings City Council
January 26, 2010
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 5:30 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Tim Reed, Council Members Julie Whaley, John
Kubal, Mike McClemans, Mike Bartley, Jael Thorpe, and Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeff
Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
Analysis of the 25/75 Second Penny Issue. The City Council requested a policy discussion
about the City’s use of second penny sales and use tax revenue as it pertains to types of
expenditures. The second penny has historically been used for capital expenditures and
securing financing for large, capital projects. State statute once required cities enacting the
second penny authority to use it exclusively for capital projects. That statute has been
amended to repeal this and now allows municipalities to use it for operating expenses just as
the first penny. However, cities can designate the use of the second penny as they deem
appropriate and Brookings has, so far, dedicated the second penny to capital uses. In addition
to exclusive capital use, by policy the City has further divided the second penny designating 25
percent for public safety, leases, land acquisition, and debt retirement related thereto. The
remaining 75 percent can also be used for land acquisition, infrastructure investments, and any
debt retirement related thereto.
Weldon said the purpose for the Council revisiting this policy is to consider whether or not the
25/75 division is too strict and should it be re-adjusted to some other split amount, re-defined,
or eliminated completely to give us maximum budgetary flexibility to address needs that change
from year to year.
He said having examined the proposed expenditures and timeline for Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) items that would be financed with 25 percent second penny, it is clear there will not be
sufficient revenue to sustain the financing for the items identified. The CIP has been revised so
most items in the 25 percent revenue stream will need to be financed as “essential” instead of
“discretionary.” The standard definition of 75 percent second penny funding has been for
“public improvement” and generally contains more items that could be considered
“discretionary.” This gets to the inherent differences in prioritizing any of the expenditures.
Elimination of the distinction of 25/75, and opting for having all second penny revenue
designated for capital improvements, land acquisition, or debt related thereto, allows for more
flexibility to meet our changing needs and allows us to better appropriate funds for adjusting
priorities. In other words, eliminating this budgetary constraint allows us to better align our
revenue stream with prioritized expenditures regardless of what type of expenditure it is. The
council has the final authority in determining what expenditures to consider as part of the
annual review of the Capital Improvement Plan.
The majority of the council members felt there was benefit to the 25/75 percentage split and
didn’t feel changing it at this time was needed. Bartley was in favor of eliminating the
percentage requirement because it would give the City more flexibility in the budgeting. It was
12
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
clarified that a change to the policy would require first and second reading of an ordinance.
There was discussion that the percentage could be referenced in the city’s governance and ends
policies and not in the ordinance.
ACTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Bartley, to repeal the second
penny sales tax ordinance on 25/75 percentage split and emergency clause and
bring back the 25/75 percentage split in policy form. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
City Council Member Introduction of Topics for Future Discussion. Whaley asked if
more public meetings were planned for the city/county facility and encouraged the committee
to schedule opportunities for citizens to provide input on the design. Weldon reported that
the committee is in the property acquisition stage and nothing has been done on design yet but
plans to provide a number of opportunities for public input, particularly how the site will fit into
the mix of a residential neighborhood, governmental center, other public buildings and its close
proximity to downtown.
Mayor Reed requested the Council be provided with a document showing all the decision
points and timelines that the Council will be involved with. Weldon will develop the document
and noted that both attorneys are drafting a joint powers agreement that will allow both
entities to combine into one entity for this project so the facility can be owned and managed as
a joint asset. The new combined entity will be a governing body subject to all open meeting
requirements including the publication of minutes.
Final numbers for the property acquisition are pending, but expected in February. The
estimated number of $1.7 million is still holding, but the group is looking at two additional
properties south of the alley for future expansion and parking. All purchase agreements would
need to be approved by both entities.
The Council requested updates on this project at every meeting.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING.
Consent Agenda. Action on hospital board appointments was removed from the consent
agenda. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal, to approve the consent agenda as
follows:
A. Action to approve the agenda as amended.
B. Approval of the 1/26/2010, 12/15/2009, 12/8/2009, 11/17/2009 and 9/22/2009
Council Meeting minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 08-10, a Resolution Dissolving Tax Increment District
Number Two of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Resolution No. 08-10
Resolution Dissolving Tax Increment District Number Two of the
City of Brookings, South Dakota
Whereas, the City of Brookings created Tax Increment District Number Two on May 28,
2007; and
13
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Whereas, under SDCL §11-9-46 a tax incremental district shall terminate when either (1the
positive tax increments are no longer allocable to a district under § 11-9-25 or the
governing body, by resolution, dissolves the district, after payment or provision for payment
of all project costs and all tax incremental bonds and notes of the district; and
Whereas, no project costs were incurred nor obligations issued pledging tax increment
revenues.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved By the City of Brookings, South Dakota as follows:
Section 1. Termination. Tax Increment District Number Two shall be terminated as of the
date of this resolution.
Section 2. Allocation of Tax Increment Fund. Any moneys remain in the Tax Increment
Number Two fund, shall be paid to the treasurer of the county, school district, or other
tax-levying municipality or to the general fund of the municipality in such amounts as belong
to each respectively, having due regard for what portion of such moneys, if any, represents
tax increments not allocated to the municipality and what portion thereof, if any, represents
voluntary deposits of the municipality into the fund.
Section 3. Authorization of Officers. The officers of the city shall take such action as is
necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
D. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign documents regarding the R&T Center
Grant Amendment. The City of Brookings was a recipient of an Economic Development
Administration grant (Award Number 05-01-02932) to assist in the construction of the
Research and Technology Center. The original purpose of the R&T Center was to serve as
an agriculture-based business and research incubator. The R&T Center had been operating
at full-occupancy until July 2009, in which one of the original tenants vacated the facility.
Another tenant has notified the City of their intent to move to a permanent location upon
completion of a new facility.The City has been working with the Brookings Economic
Development Corporation, the Enterprise Institute, and the Governor’s Office of Economic
Development to fill the vacancies in the R&T Center. Staff has been working with the
Economic Development Administration to amend the purpose of the facility in an attempt
to expand the potential tenant market. The Economic Development Administration has
approved the request to change the purpose of the facility from an agriculture-based
business and research incubator to a commercial facility. Staff will continue to market the
R&T Center to prospective tenants which fit the original purpose of the facility, as well as
prospective commercial tenants compatible with existing tenants.
E. REMOVED FROM CONSENT - Action to on appointments to the Brookings
Health System Board of Trustees. Reappoint Dr. Debra Johnston (1/1/2010-1/1/2013),
and appoint Zeno Wicks III and Teresa McKnight replacing Dr. Daniel Little and Dr.
Roberta Olson respectively (1/1/2010-1/1/2013).
14
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
F. Action on Resolution No. 09-10, awarding contract for the bids for the Bike
Trail Project.
Resolution No. 09-10
Resolution Awarding Bids on Brookings Recreation/Bike Path & Structure Project
POENH(147) PCN 00C2 and EM 8006(49) PCN 010A
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Brookings Recreation/Bike Path &
Structure Project POENH(147) PCN 00C2 and EM 8006(49) PCN 010A on Tuesday,
January 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Brookings
Recreation/Bike Path & Structure Project POENH(147) PCN 00C2 and EM 8006(49) PCN
010A
Base Bid: Engineer’s Estimate (Banners Associates): $535,906.25. Bids Received: Rounds
Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $607,765.57, Bowes Construction Co., Inc., Brookings,
SD$629,458.83, Dakota Contracting Corp., Sioux Falls, SD $650,715.97, Sioux Falls Construction
Co., Sioux Falls, SD $673,682.97, T&R Contracting, Inc., Sioux Falls, SD $712,167.82
Bid Alternate No. 1 (McCrory Gardens Loop): Engineer’s Estimate (Banners Associates):
$94,694.25. Bids Received: Rounds Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $143,781.07, Bowes
Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $143,685.36, Dakota Contracting Corp., Sioux Falls, SD
$145,487.37, Sioux Falls Construction Co., Sioux Falls, SD $150,328.70, T&R Contracting, Inc.,
Sioux Falls, SD$146,544.98
Bid Alternate No. 2 (20th Avenue to 22nd Avenue Connection): Engineer’s Estimate
(Banners Associates): $23,635.75. Bids Received: Rounds Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD
$44,193.30, Bowes Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $33,415.71, Dakota Contracting Corp.,
Sioux Falls, SD $43,362.21, Sioux Falls Construction Co., Sioux Falls, SD$53,593.98, T&R
Contracting, Inc., Sioux Falls, SD $40,637.39
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Rounds Construction Co., Inc.,
Brookings, for the Base Bid of $607,765.57 with no bid alternates be accepted contingent
upon the concurrence of the South Dakota Department of Transportation in the award of
the bid.
G. Action on Resolution No. 10-10, a Resolution Directing Preparation of
Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into Installments, and Providing for the
Collection Thereof for Sidewalk Assessment Project 2009-01SWR (2009
Sidewalk Repairs)
Resolution No. 10-10
Resolution Directing Preparation Of Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into
Installments, And Providing For The Collection Thereof For Sidewalk Assessment, Project
2009-01SWR (2009 Sidewalk Repairs).
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
15
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
1. More than twenty days have elapsed since the adoption and publication of Resolution
68-09, a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks for
Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR. The referendum has not been invoked,
and no written protests against the making of said improvement have been filed with the
City Manager.
2. A contract for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR has been duly executed,
and the City Council is authorized to levy special assessments pursuant to the provisions of
chapter 9-43, SDCL 1967, as amended.
3. The City Engineer has caused an estimate of the expense of the work to be made and
filed in City Hall showing the total cost of said improvement as follows: Contract price
$61,821.70, Engineering, inspection, fiscal, legal expense, publication $166.62; Total Expense
$561,988.32
4. The total cost of said improvement shall be paid as follows: City Repair Costs
$59,044.75, Assessable costs $2,776.95
5. There shall be made and filed in the office of the City Clerk an assessment roll for said
improvement. The assessments shall be on the basis of benefits upon each lot or tract of
land contiguous to the sidewalk constituting said improvement.
6. The assessment shall be divided into five (5) equal annual installments for all amounts
over $300.00. For amounts of $300.00 or less, the entire assessment shall be due.
7. Unless paid to the City in advance of maturity, the assessments shall be collected by the
City Manager in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Chapter 9-43, SDCL 1967,
as amended.
8. The interest rate to be borne by the unpaid installments of the special assessment is ten
percent (10%).
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Presentation of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Contest Winners. The 2010 Theme
for the poster contest was “I Have a Dream” and the theme for the essay contest was “The
Time is Always Right to do the Right Thing.” The winners were: Grades K-1 – Poster: 1st Place
Maggie Bedow, 2nd Place Micah Ardry; Grades 2-3 – Poster: 1st Place Eleanor Abraham, 2nd Place
Ellie Fitzpatrick; Grades 4-5 – Poster: 1st Place Klara Beinhorn, 2nd Place Jackie Lin; Middle School –
Essay: 1st Place Zarin Rahman, 2nd Place Sarah He; High School – Essay: 1st Place Yuru Zhang, 2nd
Place Sarah Lanning, 3rd Place Jess Crosby, Honorable Mentions Jaclyn Meyer and Alex Wiemann.
Hospital Board Appointments (REMOVED FROM CONSENT). A motion was made
by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to approve the following appointment to the Brookings Health
System Board of Trustees. Reappoint Dr. Debra Johnston (1/1/2010-1/1/2013), and appoint
Zeno Wicks III and Teresa McKnight replacing Dr. Daniel Little and Dr. Roberta Olson
16
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
respectively (1/1/2010-1/1/2013). Discussion: Whaley questioned the appointment process and
objected to replacing longtime board members during the hospital’s expansion project. She further
cited concern that there would be too many SDSU affiliated members on the Board. Mayor Reed said
he looks at a number of factors when making appointment recommendations, taking into account all
contributions a person could offer to the Board. He noted that that board can sometimes have more
SDSU affiliated individuals due to the health care nature of the group. All present voted yes;
except Whaley voted no; motion carried.
Resolution No. 11-10. A motion was made by Thorpe, seconded by Whaley, to approve
Resolution No. 11-10, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 2 Final (CCO#2Final) for
2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project, (Paving Contract), Bowes Construction Company,
Inc. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 11-10
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #2 (CCO#2 Final) for 2008-03STI Downtown
Streetscape Project; Bowes Construction Company, Inc., Brookings, SD
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-03SSI,
Downtown Streetscape Project: Construction Change Order Number 2 (final):
Adjust estimated bid quantities to final as-built quantities and adjust asphalt prices from 2008 to
2009 prices for a total increase of $10,426.83.
Adjust contract final completion date from October 15, 2008 to August 28, 2009.
Ordinance No. 01-10. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 01-10, an Ordinance
Amending Article I. of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Sunday by the Off-Sale Licensee in the City of
Brookings. Public Hearing: February 9, 2010.
Resolution No. 12-10. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Bartley, to approve
Resolution No. 12-10, a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to sign an On-Off Sale Wine
Operating Agreement for the Brookings Municipal Liquor Store. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 12-10
On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement
Brookings Municipal Liquor Store
Be It Resolved by the city of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby approves a
Lease Agreement for a Wine Operating Management Agreement between the City of
Brookings and the Brookings Municipal Liquor Store, 780 22nd Avenue South, Bill Purrington,
Manager, for the purpose of a manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for
and on behalf of the City of Brookings at the Brookings Municipal Liquor Store.
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 ten years with a renewal in five (5) years.
17
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Resolution No. 13-10. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Thorpe, to approve
Resolution No. 13-10, a Resolution Levying Assessment for Street Assessment Project 2008-
02STA (15th Street South, Christine Avenue, and Camelot Drive Utility, Grading, and Curb &
Gutter Project). No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 13-10
Levying Assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-02STA
15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Utility, Grading, and Curb & Gutter
Project
Whereas, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under Project
No. 2008-02STA, 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Utility, Grading and
Curb & Gutter Project.
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The City Council has made all investigation which it deems necessary and has found and
determined that the amount which each lot or tract will be benefited by the construction of
the street improvement heretofore designated as Street Assessment Project No. 2008-
02STA is the amount stated in the proposed assessment roll.
2. The assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-02STA is hereby approved and the
assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every lot, piece or parcel of land
thereby described.
3. The assessment shall be divided into ten (10) equal annual installments for streets.
4. 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 Sections to 9-43-51, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967, as amended.
5. Interest of ten (10) percent per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the
assessment.
Resolution No. 14-10. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Whaley, to approve
Resolution No. 14-10, a Resolution Levying Assessment for Street Assessment Project 2009-
02STA (15th Street South, Christine Avenue, and Camelot Drive paving Project.) No public
comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 14-10
Levying Assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2009-02STA
15th St. South, Christine Ave. and Camelot Dr. Asphalt Paving Project
Whereas, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under Project
No. 2009-02STA, 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Asphalt Paving
Project.
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The City Council has made all investigation which it deems necessary and has found and
determined that the amount which each lot or tract will be benefited by the
construction of the street improvement heretofore designated as Street Assessment
Project No. 2009-02STA is the amount stated in the proposed assessment roll.
18
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
2. The assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2009-02STA is hereby approved and
the assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every lot, piece or parcel of
land thereby described.
3. The assessment shall be divided into ten (10) equal annual installments for streets.
4. 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 Sections to 9-43-51, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967,
as amended.
5. Interest of ten (10) percent per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the
assessment.
Swiftel Center Public Education Discussion. Mayor Reed invited members of the public
to speak to the issue.
Public Comments: Tom Palmer, Brookings Wrestling Assoc., couldn’t make any
recommendations on this project, however, agreed it would be a great asset to Brookings.
Since moving to Brookings in 2005, the Brookings Youth Wrestling Program has grown from
30 to almost 100 youth. Their goal is for every youth to have the chance to try and thrive in
wrestling without concern for the cost of participating in the program. The City has played a
role with funding through the Parks & Rec. Dept. in support of tournaments held in Brookings.
Tournaments they have hosted were: the Great Plains Championships, Grand Nationals, and
the State Youth Tournament. They will be hosting the Youth Regional and Youth State
Tournaments in March 2010. Brookings has gained the reputation as a community which puts
on a great and efficient wrestling tournament. While most feedback is positive regarding the
participation and spectatorship for the tournament and overall experience in Brookings, they
continue to receive feedback of a shortage of hotel space. There are opportunities which
would allow larger wrestling tournaments to come to town and Palmer would entertain those
opportunities if things developed in a way to allow doing so.
Al Kurtenbach, Daktronics. SDSU is a magnet which brings talent in. When Daktronics began,
they saw a wonderful wealth of young people in the community attracted by SDSU, and have
built Daktronics by keeping and growing this talent here. However, there is a gap which the
Swiftel Center expansion could possibly help close; the gap is when students become alumni
and want to reside in Brookings. It was first thought if they could create jobs and have
adequate housing, the young people would stay; they were wrong. These young people have
eight hours in their day plus free weekends and end up driving to Sioux Falls as it offers more
things to do. Soon they move to Sioux Falls and commute to work in Brookings, which
eventually turns to finding employment in Sioux Falls. Kurtenbach believes if Brookings is going
to capitalize on this fantastic asset of SDSU graduates, the community needs to help by
providing shopping opportunities and leisure time activities. This is where the Swiftel Center
expansion fits in. The city has done a great deal for the young people with the Aquatic Center,
the Park & Rec. System, the School System, supporting SDSU, and the Innovation Campus
Research Park. The Research Park will provide employment for those fresh out of college with
good ideas and the time to put towards those ideas. Though some people say Sioux Falls takes
the young people away from Brookings, Kurtenbach thinks Brookings pushes them away. What
19
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Brookings has to offer needs to be enhanced to keep these young people around, not only as
state taxpayers, but as Brookings City taxpayers.
Former Mayor Gail Robertson, 825 Sixth Ave., shared a couple different perspectives: 1) His
professional life involved dealing with a similar venue of 5,000+ seat facilities. In virtually all of
these facilities there was private and public participation. He has never seen a facility that has
not impacted the general public positively and the community as a whole. It is a fact. 2) He
once sat on the council, and it was his charge at that time to watch the public’s funds and what
was done with them over the course of a year. There is a sizeable measure of private
participation with which to leverage and is needed to take into consideration. The dollars being
leveraged, whether federal or state matches or private, are extremely valuable dollars. He
commended the council on bringing professional management into this. In this case, there is
not one individual, but rather an entire organization who brought their management expertise
and are leveraging their expertise, as well as their ability to bring entertainment. In a visit with
Tom Richter, Swiftel Center Manager, Robertson asked who were the last four concerts.
Robertson had never heard of any of the entertainers, and yet 10,000-12,000 people attended
those concerts; that breadth of entertainment is an important aspect. Robertson thinks this
would be a terrific addition to the Brookings community.
Rob Peterson, SDSU Athletic Dept., currently serves on the Swiftel Advisory Committee and
the Visitors Promotions Committee. He agreed with Dr. Kurtenbach’s comment that SDSU is
a magnet. Some of the things the Swiftel Center expansion would do for the athletic dept. and
the teams they bring in will be critical to their future success of attracting teams to this
community and competing against SDSU.
Peterson’s job is to schedule SDSU football games, with an average of five home games a year.
When teams come to the area, they don’t stay in Brookings for lack of accommodations.
When the SDSU football team travels, they average 70-75 rooms for just the football team, but
you have to consider the visitors that travel with the team as well. SDSU is in the middle of a
facilities master plan update with the hope to expand the football stadium to 20,000+ seats
within the next 5-10 years, as well as changing Frost Arena and the events held there. The
Swiftel Center expansion would provide benefits to the SDSU Athletic Dept. and the ability to
attract teams and fans and ultimately accumulate additional tax dollars. He congratulated the
council on having the vision to consider this project because Brookings is a growing,
progressive community. Peterson stated this project has budget areas and concerns, but he is
assured City Manager Weldon has looked at the different options. Peterson believes this
project will only benefit the community.
Mayor Reed asked Peterson how many times a football team will stay in Brookings. Peterson
responded very few, however if there were adequate accommodations for a team’s needs,
more teams would stay. Peterson stated you also have to think about the fans. Fans like to
stay as close as possible to the community their team is playing in, and want to be able to go
downtown and experience the nightlife of that town.
Reed asked when scheduling games, how far out do they book hotel accommodations; nine
months on average. Many coaches want to keep their teams sequestered at away games, and
20
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
presently the Days Inn is the only hotel in Brookings able to accommodate a visiting football
teams needs requiring various meeting rooms and in-house catering.
Frank Kurtenbach, 2327 Bluegill Circle, supported others comments and added if both the
University and the City Brookings wants to grow, public support is needed or this project could
stifle community growth.
Josh Reisetter, 1714 Orchard Drive, shared his thoughts from the perspective of planning a
convention in Brookings for the summer of 2010; the SD Land Title Association will be hosting
its 100-Year Anniversary. This convention will be held the same weekend as the State
Firefighters School and they are struggling to find rooms; both hotel rooms and meeting
rooms. There is a need for the Swiftel Center expansion project and he appreciated the
council taking a hard look at the present availability of hotel rooms and meeting rooms, and the
space which would be gained from this project.
Carey Bretsch reiterated the need for additional hotel space and the importance of having that
kind of space to keep people in the city and create economic development.
A.J. Hofer, Qdoba Mexican Grill General Manager, expressed support by saying the Swiftel
Center expansion would create more opportunity for them, and other businesses around town,
by exposing visitors from surrounding communities to what Brookings has to offer.
When talking about various events, Dan Little said he was struck by the events he has worked
with. Brookings County has a vibrant and growing Dairy Industry, and many agricultural events,
due to their size, are hosted in Sioux Falls. These agricultural events don’t seem to be on Tom
Richter’s or the Convention Visitors Bureau’s list as something which could be brought to
town.
Mike Bailey, Sr., Shamrock, said he was taught the purpose of government was to provide
services which could not be provided by the private sector. He privately invested in the City of
Brookings by building the Shamrock. As a private-run facility, they pay taxes. They have been
trying to add a 60-80 unit hotel, but every time they get close, the issue of the Swiftel Center
comes up the banks get nervous and back away. For a special interest building, such as a hotel,
it would require 70% down. A hotel is very important addition to an event center. He
stressed it is not a level playing field for a public entity to go into competition with private
entities. The Swiftel Center does a great job holding events such as rodeos, concerts, etc., as
these events are not meant to be held in private events centers. Bailey sees room in Brookings
for both.
LeAnn Hokenson, 46805 Baby Place, Fairfield Inn General Manager, views the Swiftel Center
expansion as a good idea. Adding onto the Swiftel Center sounds like competition, however in
the end it is a good idea to be able to attract larger conventions and different events in which
to attract thousands of people and benefit the hotels, restaurants, and retail businesses. Guests
staying at the Fairfield Inn regularly inquire about things to do in Brookings. Brookings has
potential to be a great destination.
21
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Reed asked Hokenson what their vacancy/fill rate was during the week. Hokenson stated they
are generally at 100% occupancy almost every weekend, with 60-75% occupancy during the
week. McClemans asked how many rooms are in the Fairfield Inn; 76 rooms.
Rod Schaefer, a 35-year resident of Brookings and Swiftel Center Board member, stated
bringing people to Brookings is what this project is about. There is at least one individual
willing to privately invest and construct a hotel alongside the Swiftel Center. The Swiftel
Center has done very well, it is managed well, and in hindsight is good the city went ahead and
did what they did when they did, and supports moving ahead with the expansion.
Victoria Blatchford, Visitors Promotions Committee Chair (VPC), looking at Brookings from a
business standpoint, stated it can grow even more if you get rid of the constraints. Growing up
in western South Dakota, Blatchford lived 100 miles from a town with a very nice publicly-run
civic center with a privately-run hotel nearby. The town grew around them with a hub of
activities and businesses, with new convention center areas added on to existing hotels, etc.
That public/private partnership has continued to grow despite growing pains and risks. As
money is put in, money is generated. The money isn’t easily quantified, except by the growth in
sales tax dollars. We want to fill our hotels; we want to have more new events and re-
occurring events.
Blatchford stated in 2009, the VPC focused on recruiting conventions and youth tournaments;
the effort was enabled through transfers of funds from the VPC to the Convention Visitors
Bureau (CVB). Deb Garbers recruited 18 conventions and tournaments; the total
sponsorship/investment was $39,000 with an economic impact of almost $2 million. For 2010,
Garbers has secured 18 conventions and 11 tournaments with a potential economic impact of
$6.5 million. The expansion of the Swiftel Center would be a positive for Brookings in
increasing the capacity for more events.
Reed stated one major thing missing in this whole process is any extra costs. Reed has a fear,
due to marketing strategies in a tight market, of not having enough money in the Third B to
attract additional events. Blatchford added Garbers, the CVB and their network of associations
would allow them to be proactively prepared. They are currently searching for other events
and have had several approach them, yet they could be more proactive and attract other
events, such as the agricultural associations. Many conventions have a rotating schedule and
Garbers has a calendar showing the rotation of when they come up for bid. The more we
invest, the more opportunities will come with those associations to fill our hotels Monday
through Friday, and allow super events to be held on the weekend to entertain our students
and community. We are enhancing the quality of life here, and are giving choices; choice of
entertainment, choice of education, etc. It will not only help the Swiftel Center, but all venues.
It is Garber’s job to help bring more people to Brookings, and it is the VPC’s job to help feed
economic development through out-of-town attraction of visitors.
Reed asked if he could get an average number of what this is going to cost now and into the
future. With the letters from groups stating they would come to Brookings, he is apprehensive
as they are currently doing their thing in another community, and how much is it going to cost
to pull them away from that community. Blatchford understood his concerns. Blatchford
22
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
stated of the 18 conventions and Eleven tournaments, 50% of them are new to Brookings, the
others are reoccurring events on a 3-4 year rotation; however they still had to bid for them.
The total investment in the 29 events was $52,000 for an economic impact of $6.5 million.
Reed estimated it would take another $40-50,000 to attract additional conventions or
meetings. Garbers spends an average of $1,400 per bid for a convention.
Reed stated he wants to look at this from a different direction; how much Third B can be
generated. If we are going to invest another $40-50,000 to recruit conventions, etc., means
there needs to be $X to come in to help offset that initial cost. He doesn’t see how 15,000
attendees would offset that additional cost. Blatchford stated Third B dollars are measured at
the state level, and the figures are now broke down by code depicting approximately how much
alcohol, food and beverage, etc. has been sold.
Council Discussion: Bartley stated some insight has been provided on things which should be considered
with this project. No one knew exactly what this facility was going to be when it was built, and we still
don’t, but we know what it should be; it should be expanded. In conversation with some SDSU
professors and Dept. Heads, Bartley found there would be the possibility of hosting some National
Associations if there were appropriate accommodations in Brookings. Many state and national
associations don’t have bid processes; they just look for facilities with the appropriate accommodations.
Brookings has a lot of talent and a ‘build it and they will come’ attitude to a certain point he also
believes in it. Brookings has the potential to host meetings without a lot of recruiting expenses. With
some larger meetings it is expected to place a bid and ultimately the community would support and
give some rooms at local hotels. The economic impact on the community can’t be denied, nor how the
quality of life would be enhanced with this project.
Bartley added one can ask for numbers and people will say whatever you want them to say. This
project works and it will work in the future. Bartley feels the next step is to put out a Request For
Proposals (RFP) and get a commitment for a hotel. It is hard to design this facility until it is known how
it is going to fit, where it is going to fit, how it will sit, how big it is going to be, and what the impact on
the meeting rooms would be. Bartley doesn’t need any more information; he sees a commitment needs
to be made to move forward and hoped the council could do that rather quickly. The council has asked
for and received much data, but nothing has changed other than public support and testimonial, which
means a lot.
Thorpe was impressed and appreciated the comments made and the support given. Regarding quality
of life, she is of the demographic being talked about that Brookings is losing. The Swiftel Center events
are an asset for that demographic. Brookings has been labeled as progressive and innovative, but she
would like to see money invested in something more focused, perhaps a niche or something that is
unique to Brookings. A conference center would help with economic impact; however she would like to
see more creativity in adding to the quality of life and economic impact by looking outside of the box.
Whaley questioned at the November 17 meeting if there was direction given to see if there was a
private person interested in building an attached hotel. It seems to her they have taken a couple steps
back.
23
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Weldon clarified the city has been approached by an individual, who works with a wide variety of
franchises, who is interested in working with the city to build a hotel. In addition, he and Tom Richter
have met with another franchise associated with smaller and medium-sized conference centers in SD
and the region. This franchise seems interested; however, they want to see commitment on this project
from the city before they get more serious about it.
Whaley questioned if there are investors looking to build a hotel, why are they discussing matters from
three months ago. Weldon clarified there is no commitment from the investors, only interest. Whaley
stated there are plans, and if we start to dig, they would then be involved, correct? Weldon stated this
project needs council approval before anything more can be done moving forward.
Reed stated there needs to be a commitment of the $8 million to go forward.
MOTION: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bezdichek, to approve
moving forward on the $8 million investment on the Swiftel Center expansion
project. Discussion: Kubal has always been a skeptic on this project despite the interesting
information presented. He has never been bothered by the Swiftel Center’s subsidy; however, the
$300,000 subsidy should play into the equation. Kubal is not prepared to take $8 million worth of
action. He is bothered with committing to spending $8 million without the potential of a private facility,
and the possibility that a private facility is going to want the city’s financial help to construct the 80-100
room hotel/convention center. Bartley understood Kubal’s concerns; however, one can’t be done without
the other.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION: An amendment to the motion was made by
Bartley, seconded by Bezdichek for the Swiftel Center expansion to be contingent
upon securing a hotel partnership.
Discussion on the amendment: Bezdichek commented if a private developer doesn’t come forward to
build a hotel, then we certainly are not going to spend $8 million.
Thorpe reminded the council of the number of other facilities mentioned at the November council
meeting which were operating for 8-10 years before constructing an on-sight hotel.
Bartley clarified the amendment addresses the hotel component, whereas the Swiftel Center expansion
project was rather broad.
Whaley stated the $8 million figure is a somewhat fictitious number. With the economy as it is, this
number could be significantly less, or could end up being significantly more if this process goes on much
longer. She reminded the council this project is an investment in the community.
Weldon stated the motion and the amendment gives any hotelier, if adopted, the assurance there is
opportunity and seriousness in moving ahead on this project. Weldon does not recommend proceeding
with the project without a commitment.
On the amendment, Reed commented either a hotel is built with this or it isn’t; however, everything
supporting documentation we have states if a hotel isn’t added, then this project would not work.
24
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
ON THE AMENDMENT: Bezdichek, Kubal, Reed, Whaley, Bartley voted yes;
McClemans and Thorpe voted no. Motion passes.
Discussion on the main motion as amended: Reed expressed concerns with how to move forward. The
information is geared towards conventions; increasing the number of hotel rooms. This hotel would
have the benefit of being located adjacent to the Swiftel Center, but Reed doesn’t know how to go
forward to ensure the hotel pays for itself as he is concerned about the expenses to operate the facility
and if it is affordable.
Reed expressed an issue with the VenuWorks Study, and wondered if the council was too nice about it.
The market analysis talked about Brookings and the number of residents. The HVS Study evaluated
every single market segment possible, including agriculture. It said in a straight-forward manner,
Brookings will not increase the number of concerts or other entertainment due to proximity. That is a
significant difference in the number of people stated this would attract: 16,200 with HVS and 55,000
with VenuWorks. The 15,000 stated in the HVS Study is a good number if we are willing to spend $8
million on that number; 15,000 doesn’t seem like that many people, but it is when talking room nights.
It is not guaranteed Brookings will attract other events, but rather dilute the pool of facilities. The
question is where we want to invest our money.
Reed stated it is agreed the Swiftel Center expansion should be done, but nobody has said the number
of visitors would increase. There is a misconception that the $8 million includes the addition of the
hotel; however, it does not. With an unclear picture of total cost, Reed is concerned with unforeseeable
expenditures. He believes conversation should be directed around the best way to increase the number
of visitors is through the Swiftel Center, not to do the Swiftel Center expansion as a means to improve
visitors.
Weldon commented the $8 million would be a long-term capital improvement, not a one-year cost or a
one-year investment. The 15,000 visitors is annually; three-fourths the size of Brookings population.
With the hotels being at capacity on the weekends, but not during the week, says we are not properly
aligned with supply and demand of what is going on in the community during the week. There needs to
be more conferences and meetings during the week, which is often when most of them are held. We
would create more supply and demand by attracting another hotel to come and provide that capacity to
meet the need.
Weldon stated large events such as concerts or rodeos are not what this expansion is about. This
project is about the conference and meeting capabilities of this community. According to the HVS
Study, there is a shortage of good, quality facilities; the shortage based on looking at the Swiftel Center,
SDSU, Days Inn, Shamrock, and other places within the community. The conclusion was drawn that
there is a market here that can be developed, but there is currently a shortage of space. The
investment has already been made with the Swiftel Center, and we need to be able to adjust that to
provide for the market. Weldon shared the updated sales tax numbers for the year; The First and
Second Penny Sales was down about 7% and the Third Penny was up 5%. The increase in Third Penny
didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the CVB and VPC are investing $200,000-300,000 of
appropriated money to leverage $12-15 million worth of investment in this community. The HVS
Report stated the city subsidy wouldn’t go away, but rather would increase over time and would
25
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
increase more if the Swiftel Center slid into functional obsolescence and wasn’t continually marketed,
improved, and changed to have the ability to bring more events into the community. Weldon would like
to have more events to cause an increase in the Third B and possibly move the operating subsidy off of
the general fund, basically having the visitors paying for the operating subsidy and not the general tax
payers. This can’t be done without making that investment and keeping this building from falling into
functional obsolescence, and is also why communities do a branding exercise and change their brand
every so many years. Weldon gave an example of Disneyworld updating their rides every year to keep
things fresh, which is what needs to be done with the Swiftel Center.
Reed understood the whole concept of having the subsidy paid for by the Third B. He wants to be
realistic and if the market was here, thinks the hoteliers would be here. Private investments are even
better. Reed would be comfortable moving forward if the hoteliers came to the council with a proposal
of what they would like to see done, as they know the market, and could inform the council what they
believe should be done, but instead the council is going to spend $8 million and promote a great deal
and hopefully the hoteliers would come along.
Reed expressed concerns the Chamber and the BEDC haven’t commented on how they think this
process should go forward, as there are other options to spend this money towards.
Kubal is confused with the private developers asking the council to show them what the council is willing
to do before they’ll come forward, but also the council asking the private developers to show the council
what they can do and then the process will move forward. He appreciates the fact money will be
continually put into the Swiftel Center to keep it from functional obsolescence. Maybe there is never an
end in sight, but the $8 million is a large sum of taxpayers money to put forward.
PREVIOUS QUESTION. A motion was made by Thorpe, seconded by Kubal, to
call for the previous question. Whaley, Bartley, Bezdichek voted yes; Kubal,
McClemans, Reed, and Thorpe voted no. MOTION FAILED (debate stays open for
lack of a super majority).
Discussion: Whaley stated the city has invested $4-6 million in infrastructure for the Innovation
Campus; a 20-year project. The Swiftel Center expansion has been talked about for the past 3-4 years,
and it is known what direction it must go. She questioned if the $11 million set aside for the
Performing Arts Center was going to keep the young professionals in Brookings. She does not
understand why the council won’t invest in our own facility, but rather give $11 million to a facility on
state property. She states the $8 million merely suggests the willingness to do this project. There is a
plan, it has been looked at. A direction needs to be decided upon.
Bartley reiterated the motion approved moving forward with spending $8 million dollars with a
contingency of a private partnership with a hotel. If the hotel can’t be secured, the project doesn’t go
forward. Council Member Whaley and Bartley asked the council to move forward with the process to
secure a hotel to define whether the project can move forward or not. Bartley was willing to make a
substitute motion removing the $8 million and replace with moving forward with the project upon a
partnership with a hotel, and questioned if a motion to move forward with a RFP would be sufficient
enough to move forward. Weldon was unsure.
26
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Bartley asked if a motion to commit to build the facility contingent upon a hotel contract would be
enough for a commitment. Weldon stated it would. Reed expressed more concern with the process, as
no matter what is said; the Swiftel Center has to be invested in. The public has not come forward and
said if the city backs off on the Swiftel Center discussion, they could build this or whatever. There may
be other options for hotel locations, not just the Swiftel Center. Bartley commented the Shamrock has
run into some financing difficulty for a hotel addition specifically due to the Swiftel Center, but he
doesn’t believe this project in and of itself will satisfy the needs from the hotel, meeting room, or
conference facilities standpoint. This doesn’t mean things can’t be pursued on a private basis. The
University’s NW quadrant project of possibly adding a hotel and convention facilities at some time in
the future is no reason to drop this project. It is unknown if that will ever happen.
Bartley stated former Mayor Gail Robertson’s observation was astute in that these things don’t happen
without public support. The city might not get a private hotel to build in this economy. This type of
project is difficult to put together if the public isn’t involved. He expressed concerns with Mayor Reed’s
wanting this to be more market driven. If the city’s builds this, there is no challenge to the operators to
make it succeed and it is at that point a subsidy would be discussed.
Reed asked Weldon if there was a way to move forward with hoteliers with a process to bring back
responses of what could be done at other locations in town, and see what can be achieved. Weldon
wasn’t sure, except to lay the issue out there to different hoteliers and get their reaction. Weldon
cautioned they do not want a situation where VenuWorks operates the Swiftel Center arena, and a
hotel operates the food, beverage, and meeting rooms. That arrangement would not work in the same
building, and both would be looking for the same subsidy.
Mr. Bailey, Shamrock, questioned the possibility of a public/private cooperation to advance the economy
of Brookings. In his discussion with different hotel franchises, they do not come up with developers, and
they want you to find your own money. Based on the plans he has seen, the Shamrock has more event
center square footage, the capability, and more break-out rooms than the Swiftel Center. He asked
what if a developer built an 80-100 room hotel onto an existing convention center, such as the
Shamrock, it wouldn’t cost the city any more money.
Tom Richter clarified the city-owned portion of the Swiftel Center would be around $8 million includes:
a storage facility, the canopy between the Larson Ice Center and the Swiftel Center, the vestibule in
front of the main lobby, and redoing the existing floors in the building. Of the $8 million, new
construction for the ballroom and the storage space costs around $5 million, with the rest consisting of
renovations to the building. The hotel portion is estimated to cost between $7.5-10 million. The entire
project would be just under $20 million; $10 million in private dollars and $8 million in public taxpayer
money. The VenuWorks Study was market-driven as they manage the building, know the market, and
the lost opportunities due to it not being the right type of facility. The HVS study focused on
conventions and conferences. Over a year’s time, HVS estimated 15,000 additional attendees, whereas
the VenuWorks Study estimated closer to 50,000 additional attendees.
Richter stated if you were to calculate the HVS Study numbers, 17,000 attendees staying an average of
2 nights at $160/day, the average amount a visitor spends according to the CVB, the economic impact
would be just short of $4 million not including any ancillary items such as part-time and full-time wages,
products bought locally for food, services, etc. On the flip side, the VenuWorks Study stated 50,000
27
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
attendees. The current challenge is holding simultaneous unrelated events in the banquet room and the
arena. According to the VenuWorks Study, this project would open the arena for other events, as some
current arena events would be moved to the new ballroom. VenuWorks looked at more than just
conventions and conferences; for example some smaller-attended concerts, pool tournaments, and dart
tournaments. These events are not conventions, but they do attract visitors who spend several days at
such events. There is a fine balance ensure they host events good for the operating budget, ones they
can make money operationally, and also host events good for the community’s economy, but which may
not make as much operationally. All-in-all, attendees spend more time in our community and more
money in our businesses.
Richter stated the people here tonight are passionate for the Swiftel Center. They are business people
who know what the Swiftel Center means to Brookings. The Swiftel Center touches all reaches of our
community. When someone is against something, it is easy to come voice an opinion, however, if
someone if for a project there isn’t necessarily the passion to drive them. Richter thanked those who
came and spoke in favor of the Swiftel Center expansion.
Reed stated he is not in favor of the motion on the table and expressed his concerns whether or not
this is the best way to go to attract visitors for the least amount of Brookings taxpayers money.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: A motion to amend was made by Bartley, seconded
by Whaley, to strike the $8 million from the motion. The amended motion would
read, “Motion to approve moving forward on the Swiftel Center expansion project
contingent upon securing a hotel partnership.” Discussion on the amendment: Bartley
stated tonight was the first time Mr. Bailey made an indication he had tried to locate a hotel. No one
has come to the city and asked us to participate, no one has proposed an alternate site, nobody has
come up with anything stating this isn’t a good project for the community. Bartley has only heard to not
build it without the hotel component, as one drives the other. There needs to be a deal to indicate to
the hoteliers that we are serious. A good hotelier will know the market and the numbers and will not
invest $10 million if they don’t believe the market is there. If they do, we have a deal and move
forward. Reed asked for clarification that the hotel is to be located at the Swiftel Center. Yes.
ON THE AMENDMENT: Whaley, Bartley, and Bezdichek voted yes; McClemans, Reed,
Thorpe, Kubal voted no; AMENDMENT FAILED.
Discussion on the original motion as amended (“To approve moving forward on the $8 million
investment on the Swiftel Center expansion project to be contingent upon securing a hotel
partnership.”) Carey Bretsch commented discussion around a hotelier is a great idea. The amount to
spend and the improvements to make are going to be somewhat contingent upon the hotelier. Before
you commit to spending money, whatever the amount, a great step would be to make sure the public is
educated on what this can bring to the community.
Whaley asked if anyone was concerned or worried about the hotel being located at the Swiftel Center,
or if there’s enough demand for hotels. This motion states to get direction and go forward.
ON THE MOTION: Whaley, Bartley, and Bezdichek voted yes; Reed, Thorpe,
Kubal, McClemans voted no; MOTION FAILED.
28
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Reed stated more discussion could be had, but cautioned to bring it up in a different manner
and was open to comment from the council.
Bartley stated he is waiting for the Mayor’s comments on how to proceed as the Mayor made a
lot of objections, but didn’t offer any solutions to moving forward. Reed wanted to see more
community support; have a plan to increase visitors, have an idea of how many visitors and how
much money to invest in that, which would give an idea of how many dollars to put into visitor
promotions. Reed didn’t know how to form such a committee or how to go forward from
there, but that is the process he would like to see. Reed didn’t know how to get on that track
and was open to suggestions.
Whaley stated $300,000 plus has been invested in DBI, VPC, Deb Garbers and they tell us what
we need, and if this project doesn’t move forward, we might as well take their money away.
They try to bring people to Brookings, and the Mayor is talking about forming another
committee after spending two years getting these people to work together.
Whaley commented the CVB, Chamber, BEDC, etc. tell us what to do, but there isn’t any
letters of support from them. Reed viewed that as a missing link. Whaley questioned his
missing a piece of paper. Representatives from all of these entities have talked in favor of this
project. They want Brookings to grow. Putting a stop to this project could put a stop to a lot
of things; because the enthusiasm with the VPC, the new Brookings is Someplace Special
branding will go out the window. She doesn’t understand the direction Reed wants to go. We
have invested in these people who are unpaid and volunteer their time to attend meetings,
bring you papers, and bring you numbers…what more pieces of paper are needed. We have
the Swiftel Center, it is an investment, and it has the ability to grow.
Thorpe responded to Council Member Whaley’s comments, and as a downtown business
owner and Chamber Member, this is not something which she has formed an opinion on and
would like to hear statements of support from those entities. She wants and needs to hear
support from the community as a whole before she puts her name on something of this
magnitude.
Whaley stated the people at the meeting may not be downtown core people, but are people
who use the Swiftel Center. The downtown Bicycle Shop doesn’t have conventions at the
Swiftel Center as he can use downtown. Four million was spent to make downtown look nice
for the downtown business owners and now a letter of support is needed from the downtown
people to enhance the city on the other side of the interstate. The downtown project went
over budget, and the money was found to pay for it. Brookings needs to be enhanced,
otherwise why was money spent on new branding, etc.
Thorpe stated Whaley brought up a good point about the branding that has been worked on
and the investment made in the branding study being something to take into consideration with
this. We need to wait for the branding study outcome before we decide which way Brookings
wants to brand itself, and if this is the way to go before committing and finding out this was not
necessarily the direction to take.
29
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Reed asked Bartley to comment as he initially asked Reed directly how to go forward. Bartley
doesn’t believe Reed answered his initial question, and if there is something out there, he does
not see it. Naysayers towards the Swiftel Center still don’t believe it was a good project. He
will never change their mind, and they will not change their mind. However, there are many
people who questioned if the Swiftel Center was a good investment back then and now believe
it was good for the community. Bartley questioned if Reed suggested the City Manager and
Tom Richter talk to civic groups about the expansion. However, they couldn’t talk about other
options, because there aren’t any. He questioned why they would put together a group of
people to see what other options are out there when there aren’t any. Bartley doesn’t know
where to go from here; this is a quality of life issue. Brookings is a progressive community with
places to eat, places to entertain, and places to go. There is an opportunity and a responsibility
to continue to enhance the quality of life in this community with the types of events offered and
the tourism that brings people in.
Bartley commented Brookings is as involved with the university as they are with Brookings. It
is time to recognize it is not just the businesses in town, it is everything. He doesn’t know
what other public comments are wanted and what Reed wants them to say. Reed said as part
of the overall plan, he would like to see the BEDC, Chamber, and CVB say they would like to
this forward and is where we would like you to spend your money.
Thorpe questioned when an opportunity was ever given to the community, the business
community, to come up with ideas. It was not put it out there that that was what they were
looking for. She agreed with Reed that that needs to be done.
Kubal commented the former City Commission initially made a big mistake in building the Agri-
Plex/Multi-Plex/Swiftel Center by not having the public’s backing. Kubal asked Britzman if the
council could pass a motion for the $8 million for this project to put it on the April ballot for
the voters to decide. Britzman stated it is not permitted for the council to direct something to
be placed on a ballot. There is no mechanism to bridge the gap for the council to require a
vote on that type of motion; it would require going through the referendum process.
Weldon asked if it could be done through a referendum opt-out if it was on the property tax.
Britzman stated procedurally a council cannot place an item directly on the ballot, or create a
ballot question. Weldon added, in other words they cannot use a ballot to conduct a public
opinion poll, but one can use a ballot for an opt-out referendum to pass a public improvement
project to opt-out of the property tax limitation and put it on the property tax roles. That
option is there. Bartley stated that would be a completely different funding mechanism.
Weldon stated that is the catch. To answer council member Kubal’s question, the council can’t
use a referendum to conduct a public opinion poll.
Reed asked Deb Garbers if she reported to a board; yes, the Chamber Board as there is not a
CVB Board. Garbers, Director of the Convention Visitors Bureau, commented the CVB
receives city dollars and puts them into motion to bring conventions and tournaments to
town. There is an entire network of Brookings taxpayers who have lived here their entire life
and are vested in this community; it isn’t just about money. She wouldn’t be able to do
anything without that network of people. Garbers said it would be impossible to simplify the
30
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
process you are trying to manage responsibly. From inception to completion, every project is
done thoroughly and carefully, and even though that is a painful process, look at the numerous
facilities built over the past ten years. The reason conventions and tournaments come to
Brookings is due to the facilities that were done right; they are competitive and have a willing
community donating time, attention, and energy to promote. Conventions and tournaments
generate money for the community. In regards to the cost of attracting a convention, everyone
has individual needs to negotiate and use the strengths in the community to put together a
proposal with the least amount of investment and greatest return. The CVB dollars that go out
do not go to an outside organization; their proposal states they will provide that service or that
sponsorship by writing a check to the local entity which provides it. Their money stays in
Brookings; regenerated, recycled back into Third B dollars. It does not matter where the
facility is located, the CVB promotes all entities within the city. The more there are, the more
there will be to promote using the same system, and the system works.
MOTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Thorpe, to request the
Chamber, BEDC, VPC to bring forward their position on increasing visitors and
economic development taking into account the Swiftel Center proposal that the
council has in front of them requesting input by the end of February.
Discussion: Reed asked Al Heuton how soon this could be done; by the end of February.
Dan Little, Chamber Board Chair, would appreciate knowing what Mayor Reed wants the position on,
something more than as global as do you want more visitors in Brookings. Reed stated that is why he
added to the end of it, in light of the Swiftel Center proposal. Little stated they would talk on the
Swiftel Center proposal and the $8 million.
Reed asked if the motion had enough clarity. Britzman summarized what he is looking for is similar
thought processes by recognized community boards to evaluate the debate on the topic and weigh in.
The responses received may not be identical, but they would consider the primary subject matter of this
discussion, and would give a fairly similar analysis of the issue. They may have different opinions
whether it has merit or not or what their concerns are, but if it submitted in writing, that will add to the
discussion and provide additional helpful information to the council. The motion itself is adequate under
the circumstances.
Dan Little stated his question was simply to guide a pointed discussion, as stopping short of increasing
visitors and economic development, he can’t imagine the Chamber and BEDC not being in favor of that,
even though he cannot speak for them. They need to know specifically what to discuss. Reed stated
there can be some latitude in what is brought back to the council.
Weldon asked the Mayor if it would be okay to phrase it as if they are looking for a finding of the
Swiftel Center proposal and its ability to adequately increase visitor traffic, such as if this proposal is a
viable means of increasing visitor traffic into the community.
Reed does not argue economic development would increase with the Swiftel Center. His argument was
whether or not this is the best path for the money. He wanted to know if this is done the best way and
if it is in concert with what the BEDC and Chamber thinks should be done.
31
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Whaley questioned Reed asking permission from downtown businesses if this is the right direction to
go. Reed clarified he is asking for their input, their permission. She has always viewed it if someone is
against something they will be in the audience; Mr. Bailey has been at every meeting and shared with
the council how he feels. She questioned if any of these other committees have been here voicing their
thoughts. She views their lack of attendance means they are not against it, and want a direction which
will increase their business. She doesn’t see how having a piece of paper from them makes a
difference. When the downtown project was going on, many attended the council meetings to voice
their opinions that it was the wrong thing to do. They didn’t want it done, they didn’t want to pay for it
and we as a council said yes it is going to be done and we are going to assess you and you are going to
spend this money. The council didn’t have a problem going forward when they were told no by the
business owners, who are now happy and making money.
Bartley observed that it is difficult for the chamber to take a position on a political issue such as this as
it isn’t something all their members would necessarily agree on. The chamber would want to take a
public position. BEDC receives funding from the city and it would be equally difficult for them. If you
start gathering position statements, where do you stop? These particular people shouldn’t be targeted
to aid in this decision. Bartley sees asking for an official position paper from anybody as unfair and
unreasonable.
Reed stated Bartley made some very good points, but he still has concerns with some things about this
project and is not getting the answers he wants, and maybe he will never get them. He wondered if
they should drop this with the 4/3 vote already had.
Bezdichek has served as an elected official for over 20 years; elected officials are elected to make
decisions on what is best for Brookings. There will not be any more information; no one will tell you
there won’t be risk. If one doesn’t think this should go forward, vote it down, but don’t vote and then
ask to gather more information. Take the risk, make a decision. No one has any more information
that what has already been shared.
MOTION WITHDRAWN. Reed withdrew his motion, noting he would like to get
to a point where there are hotel proposals to review. Thorpe agreed to withdraw
her second.
Reed wants to ensure the $8 million is spent in the best possible way. Bezdichek stated he will
not get that answer, and as an elected official, if he is not willing to put a dollar amount out
there, no business person will come aboard.
MOTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, the City Council is
interested in expanding the Swiftel Center and would like to receive proposals
from hotel developers. Discussion: Bartley is afraid only considering the project does not indicate
to them we are serious. On the original motion which was voted down, it stated to approve moving
forward with the Swiftel Center expansion project, contingent upon an agreement with a hotel
developer. It said exactly the same thing with more sustenance that we are willing to move forward if
we can get a hotelier and a position.
32
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Friendly amendment was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to reword the
motion to state as follows: “To approve moving forward with the Swiftel Center
expansion project contingent upon an agreement with a hotel developer and
approval by the city council. Discussion: Kubal questioned what was meant by moving ahead.
Whaley responded direction of going forward. Kubal stated it doesn’t sound like a commitment other
than taking a look and if we don’t like it, will turn it down. Bartley stated there are all kinds of places
where this project could stop; because we don’t have interest, because we can’t afford it, because of a
referral process, etc. This says we are committed to moving forward with the project contingent upon a
hotel and an agreement we can agree on.
ON THE MOTION: Whaley, Bartley, Bezdichek, and Reed voted yes; Thorpe,
Kubal, and McClemans voted no; MOTION PASSED.
Reed stated these things are not always easy to work through. We each have our independent
ideas of how things should go and that is what was worked through tonight. We have to figure
out the best way to go forward for the benefit of Brookings.
Adjourn. A motion was made Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
33
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA #4
C. Action on Resolution No. 17-10, a Resolution declaring official
intent to reimburse.
Attached is a resolution prepared by our Financial Advisor, Toby Morris of Northland
Securities and Todd Meierhenry, our Bond Counsel, which provides for interim
financing loaning funds on-hand for the Intergovernmental Center building project.
This resolution allows us to use current fund balances as an interim, internal loan to
finance some of the initial up-front costs associated with the new building until we
establish a construction fund for the project. When we have the net sale proceeds, they
will be deposited into a construction fund and any moneys we loaned initially will be
repaid. As an example, we will soon incur costs associated with property acquisition
and possibly architectural fees before we actually receive bond funds. The amount
identified in the resolution is not what we expect the building to cost; it is a not-to-
exceed amount giving us maximum flexibility.
Messrs. Morris and Meierhenry have begun working on our bond sale documents.
34
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Resolution No. 17-10
A Resolution Declaring Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures
Whereas, the City of Brookings, South Dakota (the "City") intends to incur and pay, or
has incurred and paid, capital expenditures aggregating approximately an amount not to exceed
$7,000,000 (the "Capital Expenditures") for the property, project or program described on the
attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
hereof to the same extent as if set out in full herein (said property, project or program is
hereinafter referred to as the "Project"); and
Whereas, payment of the Capital Expenditures will be, or has been, financed, in whole
or in part, on an interim basis from moneys other than proceeds of a borrowing (collectively,
the "Temporary Advances"); and
Whereas, it is reasonably expected that the Temporary Advances will be reimbursed
with the proceeds of one or more borrowings not later than 18 months after the later of (i)
the date on which the first Capital Expenditure financed by a Temporary Advance was paid, or
(ii) the date on which the Project is placed in service or abandoned (but in no event more than
3 years after the date on which the first Capital Expenditure financed by a Temporary Advance
was paid); and
Whereas, except for architectural, engineering and similar preliminary expenditures
incurred prior to the acquisition or commencement of construction of the Project (but not
including land acquisition, site preparation and other similar costs incident to the acquisition or
commencement of construction of the Project), this Resolution is being adopted prior to or
within 60 days after the payment of the first Capital Expenditure financed by a Temporary
Advance;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by this City Council, that the City hereby declares its
official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2 to reimburse the Capital
Expenditures for the Project financed by Temporary Advances with the proceeds of one or
more borrowings, the maximum aggregate principal amount of which is not expected to exceed
$7,000,000.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February, 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Description of Property, Project, or Program
Joint City and County Building
35
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA #4
D. Action on Resolution No. 18-10, a Resolution Fixing Time and
Place for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll for Sidewalk Assessment
Project No. 2009-01SWR (2009 Sidewalk Repair Sites).
This project entailed construction of miscellaneous concrete work in the 2009 sidewalk
area. This project included repair of curb and gutter, fillets, valley gutters, curb ramps and
homeowner trip hazard sidewalks. Also included with this project was curb repair on 4th
Street and 5th Street between 3rd Avenue and 5th Avenue in preparation for the asphalt
overlay project and new sidewalk along the detention pond lots in Timberline Addition,
as well as accessible ramps and sidewalk improvements in Camelot Park.
This project has been closed out and this resolution is part of the assessment process
for the homeowner trip-hazard sidewalks, and the cost will be billed to the
homeowners. The assessment cost is for each landowner is calculated by using their
specific sidewalk cost plus the 6% engineering and administration fee. Resolution No.
68-09 authorized the sidewalk assessment project. This resolution sets the public
hearing date for the sidewalk repair project, which will be February 23, 2010. The
engineering office will mail a hearing notice and the actual cost of sidewalk repairs by
receipt certified mail to each owner on the project as required by State law. There will
be one final resolution to levy the sidewalk assessment after the hearing.
Resolution No. 18-10
Resolution Fixing Time and Place for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll for
Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR
(2009 Sidewalk Repair Sites)
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The assessment roll for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR having been filed in the office of the
City Clerk on the 1st day of February, 2010, the City Council shall meet in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said
City on Tuesday, the 23rd day of February, 2010, at 6:00 o'clock PM, the said date being not less than twenty (20)
days from the filing of said assessment roll for hearing thereon.
2. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare a notice describing, in general terms Sidewalk
Assessment Project No. 2009-01SWR, the date of filing the assessment roll, the time and place of hearing thereon,
stating that the assessment roll will be open for public inspection at the office of the City Engineer and referring to
the assessment roll for further particulars.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish said notice in the official newspaper at least one (1) week
prior to the date set for hearing and to mail a copy thereof, by first class mail addressed to the owner or owners
of any property to be assessed at his, her or their last mailing address as shown by the records of the Director of
Equalization at least one (1) week prior to the date set for said hearing.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
36
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
CONSENT AGENDA #4
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-10, a Resolution Authorizing
Agreement for Professional Services for Airport Wildlife Fence
A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010, Helms & Associates, Aberdeen, SD.
The City will be receiving Airport Improvement Grant No. 3-46-0005-23-2010, which is
for the construction of a Perimeter Wildlife Fence at the Brookings Regional Airport.
The Brookings Regional Airport is inspected annually by a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) certification officer. During past inspections, the certification
officers have indicated a new wildlife fence is necessary around the airport for the areas
that only have a four or six foot tall chain link fence, which is primarily on the east half
of the airport property. The purpose of the fence is to protect the users of the airport
from large wildlife, such as deer, coyotes, etc. In previous years, the airport managers
indicated to the certification officer that the City was performing a master plan and
environmental assessment and the fence could be installed after a determination was
made regarding the future airport location. However, the FAA is increasing their efforts
to mitigate wildlife hazards on airports and they are requiring the Brookings Airport to
install this fence by October, 2010. The new wildlife fence will be a benefit to the
airport as deer have jumped over the existing shorter fence which creates a safety
hazard for the users of the airport and takes time and resources to remove the deer
from the airport. In addition, if the airport remains at the current location, only a
portion of approximately 300 yards long will need to be moved and the fencing material
may be re-used for the new alignment.
The engineering costs are $74,657, which FAA has approved. The estimated
construction cost of the fence with the 95-3-2 FAA funding formula is $440,000. The
South Dakota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics has indicated that
they will reimburse 3% of the project cost, and the FAA will reimburse the typical 95%
of the project cost, resulting in the City share of 2%. The SDDOT share was 2% in the
past, and they have raised their portion for several of their aviation projects.
This Resolution will authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement for Professional
Services for the Brookings Regional Airport Project #3-46-0005-023-2010 for a new
Perimeter Wildlife Fence.
37
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Resolution No. 19-10
A Resolution Authorizing Agreement for Professional Services for
Airport Wildlife Fence - - A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010
Helms & Associates, Aberdeen, SD
Whereas, the Brookings City Council desires the engineering services for a Perimeter
Wildlife Fence at the Brookings Regional Airport, A.I.P. #3-46-0005-023-2010; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings is obligated to and hereby agrees to be reimbursed by
the Federal Aviation Administration for 95% and SD State Aeronautics Department for 3% of
the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the Perimeter Wildlife Fence; and
Whereas, that Federal Aviation Administration is hereby requested to authorize Airport
Improvement Project No. 3-46-0005-23-2010 in accordance with the approved grant
agreement.
Now, Therefore, Be Resolved, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign an
agreement for professional services for the Federal Aviation Administration Grant AIP Project
No. 3-46-0005-23-2010.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
38
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests
5. Invitation for a Citizen to schedule time on the Council Agenda
for an issue not listed.
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.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
President – Matt Tollefson
Vice-President – Michael Kendall
Administrative Assistant – Brandon Bausch
Finance Chair – Ashley Dumke
State & Local Chair – Catherine Grandorff
http://studentorgs.sdstate.org/studentsassociation/Default.htm
39
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Contract Awards/Change Orders
7. Action on Resolution No. 20-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change
Order No. 1 (CCO#1) to 2009-05STI SDSU Innovation Campus
Infrastructure Phase II, Bowes Construction Company, Inc.
This project entails the construction of Phase II in the SDSU Innovation Campus, which
is located east of 22nd Avenue. This construction project was designed by Banners
Associates, and includes water mains and services, sanitary sewer mains and services,
grading, detention pond, gravel, curb and gutter, asphalt paving, paint striping, signing,
and storm sewer.
Change Order No. 1 for this project includes adjustment of quantities for 6” gate valves
and boxes, a new manhole connection and geotextile fabric. This project includes six
inch water service lines which run from the water main in the street to the property
line of each lot in the development. The plans stated the six inch gate valves and boxes
would be furnished by the City. After further discussion with the Brookings Municipal
Utilities (BMU), we found BMU does not furnish six inch gate valves and boxes for
service lines. This change order also includes the cost for a new connection into an
existing manhole caused by a slight sanitary sewer alignment change between Phase I
and Phase II. The change order also includes a decrease in cost for the reduction of
25,000 square yards of geotextile fabric. It was determined by staff and the consulting
engineer the geotextile fabric could be eliminated for the roadway areas that were
higher in elevation and there is very good clay subgrade material in those areas. These
changes result in a total increase of $3,258.28 to the project costs, shown in the
following summary:
Original Contract Price: $2,183,673.92
Increase from Previously Approved Change Orders: $0.00
Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $2,183,673.92
Increase of this Change Order (No. 1): $3,258.28
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $2,186,932.20
This resolution will approve an increase of $3,258.28 to the contract with Bowes
Construction Company, Inc.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION - Approve
40
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Resolution No. 20-10
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1 (CCO#1) for
2009-05STI SDSU Innovation Campus Infrastructure – Phase II
Bowes Construction Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-05STI
SDSU Innovation Campus Infrastructure – Phase II:
Construction Change Order Number 1
Adjust contract cost to add twenty-six (26) six-inch (6”) gate valves and boxes, add connection
to existing manhole at Station 49+38 and deduct 25,000 square yards of geotextile fabric for a
total increase of $3,258.28 to the contract.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February, 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
41
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Contract Awards / Change Orders
8. Action on Resolution No. 21-10, a Resolution Authorizing Change
Order No. 2 (CCO#2 Final) For 2009-08STI Street Maintenance
and Overlay Project, Bowes Construction Inc.
This project is the annual street maintenance project that entails street repairs and
asphalt overlays on various streets in Brookings. This project was broken down into
several work schedules that were tied together into one contract, which were:
• Schedule A: Asphalt F.O.B. Plant (freight on board) – patching material that the
Street Department picks up at the plant.
• Schedule B: Overlays – asphalt milling and overlays on designated streets which
are: Martin Boulevard from Western Avenue to the west end, 5th Street from
3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue and 4th Street from 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue.
• Schedule C: Larsen Ice Arena Parking Lot – for asphalt replacement and new
asphalt pavement on the east side of the Ice Arena Building.
• Schedule D: Camelot Park Bike Trail – asphalt overlay on approximately 1,000
feet of the existing bike trail and approximately 300 feet of new asphalt bike
trail. This park is located on the north side of the new Camelot Intermediate
School.
This project has been completed and ready to be closed out. The contract for this
project was the total of all four schedules which was $310,062.95. The final project cost
with a decrease of $92,524.04 to the contract, which was mainly due to lower costs for
Schedule A and Schedule B. Fewer tons of asphalt was needed for asphalt patching for
Schedule A, which are used on an as-needed basis by the Street Department. On
Schedule B, Martin Boulevard was bid with the design of removing the asphalt pavement,
replacing the gravel base and paving a new surface. However, after examining the street
condition, staff changed the design to mill the asphalt along the curb and gutter and pave
a two-inch overlay on the roadway surface, which resulted in a savings of approximately
$68,000, while still receiving a new roadway surface and improving the centerline crown
of the street. The summary is as follows:
Original Contract Price: $310,062.95
Increase from previously approved Change Order No. 1: $1,271.48
Contract price prior to this Change Order: $311,334.43
Decrease of this Change Order: $92,524.04
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $218,810.39
The contract for this project included different completion dates for each schedule.
Schedules A, C and D were completed by their contract completion dates. Schedule B,
Overlays, had a completion date of October 15, 2009 with liquidated damages of $100
per day stipulated in the contract. However, due to the excessive rains which occurred
during the end of September and in October, the project was not completed by the
contract deadline. Schedule B was substantially completed on October 26, which was
42
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
five working days past the contract deadline. A letter from Bowes Construction
Company, Inc. requesting a time extension is included.
This resolution will approve the Change Order No. 2(CCO#2 Final) for a decrease of
$92,524.04 and will extend the substantial completion date by five days to the contract
with Bowes Construction Company, Inc.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION – “Even though the contractor completed Schedule B
later than the completion date, the paving was completed as soon as the weather was favorable and
the project was completed within the construction season. Therefore, I recommend that no liquidated
damages be charged to the contractor.”
Resolution No. 21-10
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2 (CCO#2 Final) For
2009-08STI Street Maintenance and Overlay Project
Bowes Construction Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-08STI
Street Maintenance and Overlay Project:
Construction Change Order Number 2
Adjust bid quantities to final as-built quantities for a decrease of $92,524.04 and adjust
the contract substantial completion date by five working days to close out the project.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February, 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
43
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
9. Ordinance No. 02-10 Budget Amendment #1: Authorizing a
Supplemental Appropriation to the 2010 Budget for the Purpose
of Providing for Additional Funds for the Operation of the City.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Budget Amendment #1 has many adjustments. Listed below is a summary of the
adjustments.
1. 2009 appropriations not expended within the general fund, special revenue
funds, and capital project funds including the tax increment projects.
2. Correction to the original budget Ordinance No. 21-09. Corrections are
adjusting the ordinance to match the detailed 2010 budget adopted in 2009.
Funds affected are Storm Drainage, Swiftel Center, and Airport.
3. Health insurance and liability insurance was budgeted with increases. The health
insurance had a zero increase and the liability insurance increase was less than
anticipated. Those line items are being reduced.
4. When compiling the 2010 budget the COLA for employees was funded within
the Contingency Fund. These monies are being moved into the departments and
the contingency fund is being reduced accordingly.
5. Monies for land acquisition are being budgeted in the general fund and in the
public improvement fund. It is anticipated some of these monies would be
returned in the future when financing is completed for pending capital projects.
6. Grant money for energy efficient lighting is being recognized and the expenditure
of the grant.
7. Grant money for the Airport Fencing Project and Wildlife Assessment are being
added.
45
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 02-10
An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing a Supplemental
Appropriation to the 2010 Budget for the Purpose of Providing for Additional Funds
for the Operation of the City.
Be It Ordained by the City of Brookings, South Dakota:
Whereas, there are 2009 funds not expended in the amount of $147,308 within the general
fund,
And Whereas, there are 2009 capital not expended in the amount of $687,007 within the
special revenue funds,
And Whereas, there is a need to complete three capital projects from 2009 in the amount of
$1,706,572,
And Whereas, the City Council passed resolution 138-09 accepting the bid for a new rescue
style pumper fire truck,
And Whereas, the Airport will receive grant money for a fence project and wildlife assessment,
And Whereas, there is a need to move from the contingency fund the cola and adjust the
budget to respond to the actual revenues and expenditures in fiscal year 2010,
And Whereas State Law (SDCL 9-21-7) and the City Charter (4.06 (a) permit supplemental
appropriations provided there are sufficient funds and revenues available to pay the
appropriation when it becomes due,
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council that the City Manager be authorized to
make the following budget adjustments to the 2010 budget:
Budget Amendment #1
Revenue Expense
Policy & Adm-City Council, City Clerk, City Manager 659
Financial Adm-Finance, Human Res 3,503
Other-Non-Dept, Gen Gov Buildings, IT 187,000 247,067
Public Safety-Police, Fire, Animal Control (90,987)
Public Works-Comm Dev, Engineer, Street 173,992 194,017
Culture & Recreation-Park, Rec, Forestry, Library 76,733
Total General Government 360,992 430,992
25% Sales & Use Tax 30,182
75% Public Improvement 1,599,869
E-911 (25,257)
46
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Swiftel Center 359,869 59,869
Industrial Park 27,269
Storm Drainage 753,680 3,333
3rd B Sales & Use Tax 10,735
Total Special Revenue 1,113,549 1,706,000
Streetscape 497,508
TIF#1 Innovation Campus 1,280,178 969,064
TIF#3 Valley View Addition 689,785 689,785
TIF#4 Sieler Addition 74,341 74,341
Bike Trail 200,000 200,000
Total Capital Projects 2,244,304 2,430,698
Airport Fund 448,690 196,784
Total Enterprise Funds 448,690 196,784
All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading : February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published: February 26, 2010
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
47
Budget Ordinance 02‐10
Amendment #1
February 9, 2010 By Function
Original Amended Difference
Account Number Department Description Detail Budget Budget
101‐401‐5‐421‐00 Mayor & Council Insurance Premium Disb $1,091 $918 ‐$173
101‐403‐5‐101‐00 City Clerk Regular Pay COLA & PP $132,443 $135,833 $3,390
101‐403‐5‐123‐00 City Clerk Group Ins Premium Disb $41,732 $38,019 ‐$3,713
101‐403‐5‐421‐00 City Clerk Insurance Premium Disb $424 $353 ‐$71
101‐406‐5‐101‐00 City Manager Regular Pay COLA & PP $116,480 $117,040 $560
101‐406‐5‐101‐06 City Manager Car Allow Per Council $4,800 $6,000 $1,200
101‐406‐5‐123‐00 City Manager Group Ins Premium Disb $5,945 $5,434 ‐$511
101‐406‐5‐421‐00 City Manager Insurance Premium Disb $141 $118 ‐$23
Policy & Adm Expenses $659
101‐414‐5‐101‐00 Human Resources Regular Pay COLA & PP $111,032 $114,184 $3,152
101‐414‐5‐123‐00 Human Resources Group Ins Premium Disb $20,785 $18,951 ‐$1,834
101‐414‐5‐421‐00 Human Resources Insurance Premium Disb $283 $235 ‐$48
101‐415‐5‐101‐00 Finance Regular Pay COLA & PP $213,821 $219,675 $5,854
101‐415‐5‐123‐00 Finance Group Ins Premium Disb $40,047 $36,510 ‐$3,537
101‐415‐5‐421‐00 Finance Insurance Premium Disb $564 $480 ‐$84
Financial Adm Expenses $3,503
101‐000‐4‐664‐00 Non Departmental Sale of Asset ICAP $0 $160,000 $160,000
101‐000‐4‐691‐40 Insurance Refund/Disc Insurance Disc $8,000 $35,000 $27,000101 000 4 691 40 Insurance Refund/Disc Insurance Disc $8,000 $35,000 $27,000
Other & Nondepartmental Revenue $187,000
101‐405‐5‐422‐03 Consulting Engineering Traffic Study $0 $50,000 $50,000
101‐405‐5‐856‐61 Performance Pay PP $20,000 $3,600 ‐$16,400
101‐405‐5‐856‐99 Contingency COLA & Land $256,977 $177,154 ‐$79,823
101‐405‐5‐856‐99 Contingency Land Acquisition $177,769 $100,000 ‐$77,769
101‐405‐5‐910‐00 GF Non Dep Land Acquisition $0 $366,000 $366,000
101‐416‐5‐101‐00 Information Tech Regular Pay COLA & PP $41,630 $42,459 $829
101‐416‐5‐123‐00 Information Tech Group Ins Premium Disb $4,887 $4,467 ‐$420
101‐416‐5‐421‐00 Information Tech Insurance Premium Disb $141 $118 ‐$23
101‐417‐5‐421‐00 Gen Gov Buildings Insurance Premium Disb $7,665 $12,338 $4,673
Other & Nondepartmental Expense $247,067
101‐421‐5‐101‐00 Police Regular Pay COLA & PP $1,547,820 $1,550,920 $3,100
101‐421‐5‐123‐00 Police Group Ins Premium Disb $407,082 $319,230 ‐$87,852
101‐421‐5‐421‐00 Police Insurance Premium Disb $21,226 $20,350 ‐$876
101‐421‐5‐427‐01 Police Travel Moving‐Registration $4,900 $8,000 $3,100
101‐421‐5‐427‐02 Police Registration From Travel $8,000 $4,900 ‐$3,100
101‐422‐5‐101‐00 Fire Regular Pay COLA & PP $164,073 $168,788 $4,715
101‐422‐5‐123‐00 Fire Group Ins Premium Disb $39,997 $33,423 ‐$6,574
101‐422‐5‐421‐00 Fire Insurance Premium Disb $22,909 $23,389 $480
101‐442‐5‐101‐00 Animal Control Regular Pay COLA & PP $38,202 $38,939 $737
101‐442‐5‐123‐00 Animal Control Group Ins Premium Disb $16,733 $12,059 ‐$4,674
101‐442‐5‐421‐00 Animal Control Insurance Premium Disb $501 $458 ‐$43
Public Safety Expense ‐$90,987
101‐418‐4‐334‐09 Community Dev 09 bal Grant SRTS $0 $66,449 $66,449
101‐418‐4‐334‐10 Community Dev Energy Grants $0 $107,543 $107,543
Public Works Revenue $173,992
101‐418‐5‐101‐00 Community Develop Regular Pay COLA & PP $245,037 $251,275 $6,238
Page 1
Budget Ordinance 02‐10
Amendment #1
February 9, 2010 By Function
Original Amended Difference
Account Number Department Description Detail Budget Budget
101‐418‐5‐123‐00 Community Develop Group Ins Premium Disb $45,784 $28,815 ‐$16,969
101‐418‐5‐421‐00 Community Dev Insurance Premium Disb $803 $882 $79
101‐418‐5‐441‐04 Community Dev 09 bal Safe Rts to School $0 $66,449 $66,449
101‐418‐5‐441‐05 Community Dev Energy Lite fix/bulbs $0 $107,543 $107,543
101‐419‐5‐101‐00 Engineering Regular Pay COLA & PP $287,104 $295,040 $7,936
101‐419‐5‐123‐00 Engineering Group Ins Premium Disb $34,596 $31,573 ‐$3,023
101‐419‐5‐421‐00 Engineering Insurance Premium Disb $7,645 $5,721 ‐$1,924
101‐419‐5‐920‐00 Engineering Traffic Signal Orchard $0 $20,000 $20,000
101‐431‐5‐101‐00 Street Regular Pay COLA & PP $566,091 $596,157 $30,066
101‐431‐5‐123‐00 Street Group Ins Premium Disb $139,490 $119,162 ‐$20,328
101‐431‐5‐421‐00 Street Insurance Premium Disb $35,855 $33,805 ‐$2,050
Public Works Expense $194,017
101‐451‐5‐101‐00 Recreation Regular Pay COLA & PP $194,155 $199,310 $5,155
101‐451‐5‐123‐00 Recreation Group Ins Premium Disb $37,294 $31,252 ‐$6,042
101‐451‐5‐421‐00 Recreation Insurance Premium Disb $12,350 $10,925 ‐$1,425
101‐452‐5‐101‐00 Parks Regular Pay COLA & PP $359,557 $367,868 $8,311
101‐452‐5‐101‐06 Parks Car Allow $1,200 $1,500 $300
101‐452‐5‐123‐00 Parks Group Ins Premium Disb $108,761 $96,337 ‐$12,424
101‐452‐5‐421‐00 Park Insurance Premium Disb $29,200 $26,771 ‐$2,429
101‐452‐5‐911‐00 Parks‐CIP Building Bandshell $125,000 $137,456 $12,456101 452 5 911 00 Parks CIP Building Bandshell $125,000 $137,456 $12,456
101‐452‐5‐920‐00 Parks‐Hillcrest Equipment Playground $25,000 $70,000 $45,000
101‐452‐5‐940‐00 Parks‐Camelot Other Cap Playground $50,000 $73,403 $23,403
101‐454‐5‐101‐00 Forestry Regular Pay COLA & PP $211,740 $216,379 $4,639
101‐454‐5‐101‐06 Forestry Car Allow $600 $750 $150
101‐454‐5‐123‐00 Forestry Group Ins Premium Disb $43,202 $40,723 ‐$2,479
101‐454‐5‐421‐00 Forestry Insurance Premium Disb $4,465 $4,070 ‐$395
101‐455‐5‐101‐00 Library Regular Pay COLA & PP $455,254 $464,530 $9,276
101‐455‐5‐123‐00 Library Group Ins Premium Disb $76,961 $70,967 ‐$5,994
101‐455‐5‐421‐00 Library Insurance Premium Disb $7,860 $7,091 ‐$769
Culture & Recreation Expense $76,733
Total General Fund Revenue $360,992
Total General Fund Expense $430,992
212‐000‐7‐899‐00 25% Sales & Use Engine 4 Overage $400,000 $430,182 $30,182
25% Sales & Use $30,182
213‐000‐5‐856.67 75% Public Improve 09 bal Wellness Center $0 $500,000 $500,000
213‐000‐7‐899‐03 75% Public Improve 09 bal Swiftel‐Lite Proj $350,000 $409,869 $59,869
213‐000‐7‐899‐26 75% Public Improve 09 bal Bike Trail $101,000 $141,000 $40,000
213‐000‐5‐910‐00 75% Public Improve Land Acquisition $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
75% Public Improve $1,599,869
214‐000‐5‐123‐00 E‐911 Group Ins Premium Disb $87,646 $55,989 ‐$31,657
214‐000‐5‐425‐06 E‐911 Main Radio Inc maintenance $500 $1,500 $1,000
214‐000‐5‐920‐00 E‐911 Server VMW $17,100 $22,500 $5,400
E‐911 ‐$25,257
Page 2
Budget Ordinance 02‐10
Amendment #1
February 9, 2010 By Function
Original Amended Difference
Account Number Department Description Detail Budget Budget
224‐000‐6‐700‐04 Transfer In 09 capital $350,000 $409,869 $59,869
224‐000‐6‐700‐04 Transfer In 09 capital Correct Ord 21‐09 $409,869 $709,869 $300,000
Swiftel Center $359,869
224‐000‐5‐940‐01 Swiftel Center 09 bal Lite Proj‐Phase II $350,000 $409,869 $59,869
Swiftel Center $59,869
278‐000‐5‐960‐00 Industrial Park 09 bal 32nd Ave N Proj $0 $27,269 $27,269
Industrial Park $27,269
282‐000‐4‐112‐01 Storm Drainage Fees Correct Ord 21‐09 $0 $645,000 $645,000
282‐000‐4‐112‐03 Storm Drainage Fees Correct Ord 21‐09 $0 $108,680 $108,680
Storm Drainage Revenue $753,680
282‐000‐5‐101‐00 Storm Drainage Regular Pay COLA & PP $48,777 $52,110 $3,333
Storm Drainage Expense $3,333
284‐000‐5‐422‐07 3rd B Tax 09 bal Video & Granicus $30,000 $40,735 $10,735
$10,735
513‐000‐5‐856‐99 Streetscape 09 bal Contingency $0 $325,094 $325,094
513‐000‐5‐940‐00 Streetscape 09 bal Street & Sidewalk $0 $172,414 $172,414
Streetscape $497,508Streetscape$497,508
514‐000‐4‐653‐50 Innovation Campus 09 bal SRF Loan $0 $1,152,161 $1,152,161
514‐000‐4‐653‐51 Innovation Campus 09 bal SRF Loan‐Stimulus $0 $128,017 $128,017
Innovation Campus Revenue $1,280,178
514‐000‐5‐429‐09 Innovation Campus 09 bal Other Project Exp $0 $10,000 $10,000
514‐000‐5‐429‐10 Innovation Campus 09 bal Storm Dr Sewer $0 $745,000 $745,000
514‐000‐5‐433‐01 Innovation Campus 09 bal Street,curb,gutter $2,022,500 $2,077,669 $55,169
514‐000‐5‐450‐08 Innovation Campus 09 bal Designing Fee $171,500 $330,395 $158,895
Innovation Campus Expenses $969,064
516‐000‐4‐653‐50 TIF#3 Valley View Addn 09 bal Loan Proceeds $0 $689,785 $689,785
TIF#3 Valley View Addn Revenue $689,785
516‐000‐5‐429‐09 TIF#3 Valley View Addn 09 bal Other Project Exp $0 $135,437 $135,437
516‐000‐5‐433‐01 TIF#3 Valley View Addn 09 bal Project Construct $0 $554,348 $554,348
TIF#3 Valley View Addn Expense $689,785
517‐000‐4‐653‐50 TIF#4 Sieler Addn 09 bal Loan Proceeds $0 $74,341 $74,341
TIF#4 Sieler Addn Revenue $74,341
517‐000‐5‐429‐09 TIF#4 Sieler Addn 09 bal Other Project Exp $0 $20,000 $20,000
517‐000‐5‐433‐01 TIF#4 Sieler Addn 09 bal Project Construct $0 $54,341 $54,341
TIF#4 Sieler Addn Expense $74,341
550‐000‐4‐334‐09 Bike Trail 09 bal Grants $424,000 $584,000 $160,000
550‐000‐6‐700‐04 Bike Trail 09 bal Transfer in $101,000 $141,000 $40,000
Bike Trail Revenues $200,000
550‐000‐5‐940‐00 Bike Trail 09 bal Improvement $525,000 $725,000 $200,000
Bike Trail Expenses $200,000
Page 3
Budget Ordinance 02‐10
Amendment #1
February 9, 2010 By Function
Original Amended Difference
Account Number Department Description Detail Budget Budget
606‐000‐4‐334‐09 Airport Reimb Grants $196,690 $637,380 $440,690
606‐000‐4‐848‐12 Airport Rent Rental $20,000 $28,000 $8,000
Airport Revenues $448,690
Total Airport Personnel Correct Ord 21‐09 $404,539 $160,703 ‐$243,836
606‐000‐5‐911‐00 Airport Bldgs Fence Project $80,000 $520,000 $440,000
606‐000‐5‐940‐00 Airport Other Cap Wildlife assmnt $294,880 $295,500 $620
Airport Expenses $196,784
Page 4
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
10. Ordinance No. 03-10: An Ordinance Amending Section 78-38 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings, South Dakota
and Pertaining to the Use of Municipal Sales, Service and Use Tax
Revenue in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Pursuant to City Council direction from the January 26th meeting, the enclosed
ordinance has been prepared to repeal Section 78-38 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Brookings, South Dakota and Pertaining to the Use of Municipal Sales, Service
and Use Tax Revenue in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
In its place, the City Council gave direction to prepare a policy on second penny sales
tax uses that would define exclusive capital uses, designating 25% of the second penny
for public safety, leases, land acquisition, and debt retirement related thereto, and the
remaining 75 percent could also be used for land acquisition, infrastructure investments,
and any debt retirement related thereto. A draft policy will be available for Council
discussion and action on February 23rd.
52
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
ORDINANCE NO. 03-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 78-38 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA AND PERTAINING TO THE USE OF
MUNICIPAL SALES, SERVICE AND USE TAX REVENUE IN THE CITY OF BROOKINGS,
SOUTH DAKOTA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS,
SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Sec. 78-38. Use of revenue.
Any revenues received under section 78-32(b) shall be used only for the purposes as
defined and set forth in SDCL 10-52A-2.
II.
All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
53
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
11. Ordinance No. 04-10: An application for a conditional use to
establish a Contractors Shop and Storage Yard in the Business B-
3 District (623 Henry Avenue).
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Applicant: Owen’s Enterprises
Proposal: Establish an outside yard area for the storage of a contractor’s equipment and
materials.
Background: The area from Wilson Avenue to First Avenue and 6th Street to 7th Street
was originally developed with residences behind a row of commercial businesses that
abutted 6th Street. The 1966 Comprehensive Plan created a heavy business district in
this area which would be an extension of the commercial corridor around Main Avenue.
Designating the entire block for B-3 Business district uses would allow for future
commercial expansion and reduce conflicts between abutting land uses. Today, the area
is still in transition. The neighborhood has residences, mixed residence/business uses
and commercial buildings.
The standards for this conditional use are listed below. These standards are the
minimum requirements necessary for this application to be heard. The impact of this
use on neighboring properties should be a major consideration by the Commission.
Sec. 94-266. Contractor Shop and Storage Yard:
Such uses shall screen all outdoor storage from adjacent property. Service vehicles shall be
localized in an area on the lot which will minimize the impact upon adjacent uses. Any
lighting of the storage yard should be done in a way that will not cause a glare onto
residential properties.
Specifics: The property contains a one-story, single-family home and several accessory
buildings. There is also some partial fencing along the south and north sides. The
storage area would be located in the rear yard next to the alley.
Surrounding uses include a BMU sewer lift station to the south, a single-family residence
to the north and a mixed residence/business use directly across the alley that has
existed for several decades. There are two single-family dwellings on adjacent lots as
shown.
54
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
It is recommended that any approval be subject to a uniform, 6-foot high privacy type
fence, around the perimeter of the storage area. Fencing along the alley could be
optional since pickups with trailers need space to maneuver. In addition, any proposed
security lighting should be installed so there is minimum glare off the site.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be available in the February 23rd packet.
Ordinance No. 04-10
An Ordinance Pertaining to an Application for a Conditional Use for a Contractor’s
Shop and Storage Yard in the Business B-3 District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for a Contractor’s Shop and Storage Yard on Lots 9-12,
Block 2, Parkdale Home Replat Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The existing six (6) foot high fence along the north lot line shall remain in place for
the duration of the Conditional Use.
2. The existing four and one-half (41/2) foot high fence along the south lot line shall
remain in place for the duration of the Conditional Use.
3. The Conditional Use permit shall be granted only to the applicant.
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
55
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Sec. 94-134. BUSINESS B-3 HEAVY DISTRICT.
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for a wide variety of retail services. This district will include
commercial uses requiring large land areas, extensive retail operations, and outdoor display of merchandise.
Inventory and material storage shall be screened.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title, when
referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Business B-3 Heavy District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Retail or service store
2. Personal service store
3. Hotel
4. Financial institution
5. Public transportation facility
6. Public utility facility
7. Parking facility or lot
8. Grocery supermarket
9. Drive-in food service
10. Gas dispensing station
11. Animal hospital
12. Car wash
13. Indoor or outdoor recreational facility
14. Temporary storage facility
15. Automobile sales
16. Office
17. Seasonal roadside stand
18. Drinking Establishment
19. Telecommunications Towers
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in conformance
with the conditions prescribed herein:
1. Outdoor sales
a. Used parts and other material storage shall be screened from adjoining property.
2. Wholesale trade with warehousing and storage
a. All inventory shall be stored within a completely enclosed building.
3. Lumberyard
a. The lumber storage area shall be at the rear of the building and screened from any arterial
street or residential district.
b. Seasonal outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
4. Nursery or greenhouse
a. Any land used to grow flowers, shrubs or trees shall not be located within 100 feet of an
arterial street.
5. Reverse vending machine
a. A trash receptacle shall be provided on-site.
6. Automobile service station
a. No fuel delivery pump shall be located within twenty feet (20') of any side lot line or right-of-
way line. No fuel pump shall be located within fifty feet (50') of the side or rear lot line
abutting a residential district.
b. All repair work shall be done within a completely enclosed building.
c. All used automobile parts and dismantled vehicles shall be screened from adjacent property.
7. Citizen's drop-off for recyclables
60
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
a. No container shall be located within 100 feet of a residential district.
8. Motor vehicle repair shop
a. All repair work shall be done within a completely enclosed building.
b. All used automobile parts and dismantled vehicles shall be screened from adjacent property.
9. Motel
a. A minimum lot area of 1,000 square feet shall be provided for each sleeping room or suite.
10. Equipment rental store
a. An on-premise pickup and drop-off area shall be provided
b. Outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
11. Auction house
a. An on-premise pickup and drop-off area shall be provided
b. Outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
12. Semi-trailer storage
a. Storage shall not be permitted in the minimum front yard setback.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Assembling and packaging
2. Freight handling
3. Manufacturing, light
4. Mixed business/residential use
5. Contractors shop and storage yard
6. Buy back center for recyclables
7. Household hazardous waste site
8. Light processing facility
9. Transfer site for recyclables
10. Day care facility
11. Kennel
12. Truck and trailer rentals
13. Farm Implement Sales
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The B-3 district regulations shall be as follows:
Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
All Uses - - 20' -* 20'* 45'
*A fifty foot (50') landscaped area shall be required between an abutting residential district boundary line
and any structure, access drive, parking lot or other accessory use.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the B-3 District are buildings and uses
customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the B-3 District shall be in conformance with
the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter.
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the B-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in
division 5 of article VI of this chapter.
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the B-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set
forth in article II of this chapter.
61
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
12. Ordinance No. 05-10: A petition to rezone Lots 128, 129A, 129B,
130A, 130B, 131A and 131B, Onaka Village, Indian Hills Addition
from a Residence R-2 District to a Residence R-3 District (Crystal
Ridge Rd and Dakota Trail area) .
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Applicant: City of Brookings
Proposal: Upzone several developed residential lots from medium to high-density uses.
Background: Originally, Onaka Village was zoned for high density uses and Wahpeton
Village was zoned for low density uses. In 2005, land bordering Onaka and Wahpeton
Villages in Indian Hills Addition was redesigned and replatted. The developers proposed
a transitional zone of medium density for 15 lots along Dakota Trail and Crystal Ridge
Road. This was approved and subsequently one single-family dwelling, seven duplexes,
and three twinhomes were constructed in Onaka Village. One lot remains vacant. The
remaining three lots in Wahpeton Village are also vacant.
Specifics: The lots associated with the petition are developed. The “A/B” lots are split
lots that contain the twinhomes. Lot 128 contains a duplex. A field check of the
setbacks of the buildings indicated that 3 of the 4 residential structures were built too
close to the front lot line. Therefore, a rezoning has been proposed that would bring
the structures into conformance. An R-3 district currently exists to the north and east
of these lots and R-1B and R-2 districts exist to the south. It is not anticipated that any
changes would occur to the structures or lots since all the construction is new.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be included in the February 23rd packet.
62
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 05-10
An Ordinance to Change the Zoning within the City of Brookings
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of
South Dakota, described as follows:
Lots 128, 129A, 129B, 130A, 130B, 131A and 131B of Onaka Village, Indian Hills Addition
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from a Residence R-2 District to a
Residence R-3 District.
In accordance with Section 94.7 of Article I of Ordinance 25-02 of the Code of Ordinances of
Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III
and IV of Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is hereby
altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City
of Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading and Adoption: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
______________________________
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
63
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Sec. 94-127. RESIDENCE R-3 APARTMENT DISTRICT
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross density of
seven to twenty-four dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single-family, two-family,
apartments, condominiums, townhouses, fraternities and sororities plus support facilities such as
schools, parks, churches and community and public buildings.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this
title, when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-3 Apartment
District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private
garages, parking areas, etc.
2. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private
garages, parking areas, etc.
3. Single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling
4. Apartment or condominium
5. Townhouse
6. Fraternity and sorority
7. Family day care
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with the conditions prescribed herein:
1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-124(d)(R-1A).
2. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-125(d)(R-1B) excluding
family day care.
3. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-126 (R-2), excluding
single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling and family day care.
4. Day care facility.
a. A 4-foot high transparent fence shall be constructed between the play area and the
street when the play area is adjacent to any arterial or collector street.
b. A safe pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided.
5. Retirement or nursing home.
a. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residential properties by a four (4) foot
high fence or equivalent landscaping.
6. Group home.
a. Applicants shall provide statements as to the type of supervision the home will have.
7. Domestic abuse shelter.
a. All parking shall be provided on the premises.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Public recreation facility
2. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge
3. Major home occupation
4. Vocational or trade school
68
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
5. Office
6. Bed and breakfast
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations: The R-3 district regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family
Dwelling 6,000 50' 20' 7' 25' 35'
Two dwelling
Units 8,400 65' 20' 7' 25' 35'
SF Attached
0' Sideyard 9,600 75' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
2 Units on non-party wall
3 Units 12,000 90' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-party wall
4 Units 14,000 105' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-party wall
Apts., Condos,
Townhouses*
(3 or more Units) 1,815** 10,000 75' 20' 7'*** 25' 45'
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Other Allowable Uses 6,000 50' 20' 7'*** 25' 45'
*Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling unit exclusive of required
building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3) of the landscaped area shall be located in a
continuous, single tract which contains no portions thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to
either the entire width or entire length of said tract. 50% of the required landscaped area may be used for parking
spaces in excess of the minimum requirement. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential
uses according to Section 94-401.
**A maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed.
***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more stories in height.
Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing
homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual rooms.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-3 District are buildings and
uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-3 District shall be in
conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set
forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in article II of this chapter
69
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
13. Ordinance No. 06-10: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to fences.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Proposal: Minor modifications have been proposed for fences. An explanation of the
various changes is as follows:
Fences: The changes in this section refer to fences in the front yard. The proposed
amendment replaces the “split rail” design with generic language and allows an open
fence design to have a greater height. An example is in your packet.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be in the February 23rd packet.
70
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 06-10
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to Fences for the Purposes of Administration of the Zoning Ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota that Chapter 94,
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Sec. 94-398. Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) Regulations generally. Regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges shall be as follows:
In all residential districts and on lots used principally for residential purposes in any business or
industrial district, privacy, solid board or other similarly designed fences, walls and hedges shall
not exceed thirty (30) inches in height when located between the front lot line and the principal
building. Fences with a horizontal rail design that results in 70% or more of open space from
grade to the top of the top rail split rail design may extend forty-two (42) inches thirty-six
inches (36”) above the adjacent grade measured from grade to the top of the top horizontal
rail. Fences and walls on any other part of a lot may not exceed six (6) feet in height when
located within the minimum required setback area. The height of such walls and fences shall be
determined by measurement from the ground level at the lowest grade within three (3) feet of
either side of such fence or wall.
Section 2. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
_____________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
71
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
14. Ordinance No. 07-10: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to accessory buildings.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Proposal: Substantial modifications have been proposed for accessory buildings. An
explanation of the changes is as follows:
Accessory buildings: These uses have continued to increase in size and function over
the years. The last major revision regarding these uses was in 1996. This amendment
set limitations on floor area and lot coverage.
The enclosed photos are some examples of how accessory buildings have expanded
upward in order to comply with the percentage of lot coverage limitation. In some
cases, as you can see, the accessory building becomes the dominant structure on the lot.
The amendment would count the area of all floors together. It would also limit the
sidewall height to 12 feet. This would still allow for the storage of some oversized
vehicles or other equipment that may not fit under a standard garage door.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be in the February 23rd packet.
75
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 07-10
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings Pertaining
to Accessory Buildings for the Purposes of Administration of the Zoning Ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota: that Chapter 94,
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Sec. 94-342. Additional Height Regulations
(c) Accessory Buildings. No accessory building located upon a residential lot shall have a height
greater than that of the principal building.
Section 2.
Sec. 94-365. Accessory Buildings and Uses.
(a). In the A, R-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-2, R-3, R-3A, RMH and RB-4 districts, accessory buildings
and uses are limited to the following:
6. The total square footage of all accessory buildings on a lot used for residential purposes
in the R-1A, R-1B, R-2, RMH, R-3, R-3A and RB-4 districts shall not exceed 25 percent
of the rear yard area or 1,000 square feet of all floors combined whichever is less.
Exceptions are as follows:
Section 3.
Sec. 94-394. Accessory Building Location.
(c) An accessory building located in front of a dwelling shall have a sidewall height measured
from the floor to the top of the top plate no greater than eight feet (8’) and the highest
point of the roof measured from the floor to the roof peak no higher than fifteen feet
(15’). An accessory building located in the side yard or rear yard of a residential lot
shall have a sidewall height measured from the floor to the top of the top plate no
greater than twelve (12) feet.
Section 4. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
___________________________________
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
76
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
15. Ordinance No. 08-10: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to access drives.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Proposal: Minor modifications have been proposed for access drives. An explanation of
the changes is as follows:
Access drives: The current and proposed regulations are in the packet. There are 8
diagrams that describe what the regulations say in words. While most of the changes
are for clarification purposes, the crosshatched portions on the diagrams do indicate a
change. By allowing a “reverse flare” in the boulevard area, residents will have an easier
time accessing an on-premise parking pad. Without the access drive expansion, some
residents simply drive over the boulevard grass.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be in the February 23rd packet.
83
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 08-10
An ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to Access Drives for the purposes of Administration of the Zoning
Ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota that Chapter 94,
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
SEC. 94-343. ACCESS DRIVES
(b) Residential Districts. The following regulations shall apply to all lots in the residential
districts:
(b) 2. The curb cut, for any access drive that leads directly to a rear yard or garage, may be up
to 24 feet in width. A flare, at the curb, up to 4 feet on each side, shall also be permitted. The
curb cut may be widened, proportionally, from 24 to 36 feet in width, plus any flare, when it
provides access to a garage that has a width of 24 to 36 feet. The maximum curb cut width for
a residential lot shall be 44 feet, including the flare. The flare length for access drives leading to
school bus loading and unloading zones shall be determined by the city engineer subject to
criteria in the Engineering Design Standards.
(b) 3. An access drive from the curb cut to the sidewalk or property line (if no sidewalk
exists), which has direct access to a garage or rear yard, may be up to 24 feet in width at the
sidewalk or property line.
Exceptions:
a. An access drive may be expanded, proportionally, to match the width of a
garage that has a width of between 24 to 36 feet.
b. An access drive may be flared from the edge of the curb cut to match the
outer edge of any approved parking area established between the garage and
nearest side lot line that extends down to the sidewalk or property line.
c. In the case of an accessory building that is used as a private, detached garage,
when a parking area is established on either side of the building, the access
drive may be flared from the edge of the curb cut to match the outer edge of
the parking area at the sidewalk or property line.
(b) 4. The width of a driveway, which leads directly to a rear yard, or a driveway which leads
directly to and has access into a garage, may be up to 24 feet in width.
Exceptions:
a. The width of a driveway may be expanded, proportionally, to match a garage
that has a width of 24 to 36 feet. This restriction only applies within the
minimum front yard setback area established for the district.
b. Expanding the width of a driveway within the minimum front yard setback
area between the driveway and the side lot line facing the outer wall of an
84
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
attached garage shall not exceed 12 feet for garages that have doors facing
the street. However, the maximum width of any driveway shall not exceed
36 feet, including a side yard parking area when located within the minimum
front yard setback area established for the district.
c. Expanding the width of a driveway within the minimum front yard setback
area on one side or the other of an accessory building that is used as a
private garage shall be permitted provided the side parking area does not
exceed 12 feet in aggregate width and further provided that the parking area
leads directly to the rear or side yard.
Section 2. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
____________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
85
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
16. Ordinance No. 09-10: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to brewpubs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Proposal: One new use has been created with the accompanying definition and standards. An
explanation of the various changes is as follows:
Brewpub: Brewpubs have been around for centuries. For instance, the oldest one in the British
Isles is the Blue Anchor established in 1400. Brewpubs continued in popularity throughout
Europe until the early 1900’s when large breweries began buying them out. This trend lasted
until the 1970’s when brewpubs and microbreweries began reappearing throughout Europe and
the United States. Brewpubs have seen a major revival in the U.S. in the last 25 years. In South
Dakota, brewpubs exist in Sioux Falls, Watertown, Rapid City, Spearfish, Yankton, Pierre, and
Deadwood.
Most brewpubs function as full-service restaurants. One recognizable brewpub is Granite City
Food and Brewery Company. This is a regional chain with locations in Sioux Falls, Fargo, St.
Cloud, Omaha and other cities. Brewpubs are also located in taverns/bars where only alcoholic
beverages are sold but this is not common in the northern plains.
Brewpubs are permitted by right or conditional use in central business districts. They are also
permitted by various means in general commercial districts and sometimes in industrial districts
where microbreweries exist. The most common standards associated with brewpubs are as
follows:
• Manufacturers malt beverage license required
• Liquor license required
• Limit on annual production
• Restriction on off-sale
• Allowed only in conjunction with a restaurant
• % of sales requirements (beer/food)
• Maximum floor area coverage for brewing operation
• Grain shipment methods (CBD)
• Spent grain disposal method (CBD)
The draft ordinance allows a brewpub in 4 different districts. It would be a conditional use in
the B-1 and a permitted special use in the B-2, B-3 and B-4. Some of the standards from the list
are included as prerequisites.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes and
Summary will be in the February 23rd packet.
91
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 09-10
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to Brewpubs for the Purposes of Administration of the Zoning
Ordinance
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota: that Chapter 94,
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 94-1. Definitions
Brewpub: A restaurant or drinking establishment that includes the brewing of beer
as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops,
and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting.
Restaurant: A public eating place
Sec. 94.131. Business B-1 Central District
(e) Conditional Use
7. Brewpub
Sec. 94.132. Business B-2 District
(d) Permitted Special Uses
5. Brewpub
a. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed
25% of the total floor area of a combined restaurant and drinking
establishment and 50% of the total floor area of a drinking establishment
without restaurant services.
b. A malt beverage manufacturer’s license must be obtained per state law
c. An alcohol beverage license must be obtained per city ordinance
d. The brewery shall not produce more than 1,500 barrels or beer of ale per
year. A barrel contains thirty-one (31) gallons.
Sec. 94.134. Business B-3 Heavy District
(d) Permitted Special Uses
14. Brewpub
a. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed
25% of the total floor area of a combined restaurant and drinking
establishment and 50% of the total floor area of a drinking establishment
without restaurant services.
b. A malt beverage manufacturer’s license must be obtained per state law
c. An alcohol beverage license must be obtained per city ordinance
d. The brewery shall not produce more than 1,500 barrels of beer or ale per
year. A barrel contains thirty-one (31) gallons.
Sec. 94.135 Business B-4 District
(d) Permitted Special Uses
12. Brewpub
a. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed
25% of the total floor area of a combined restaurant and drinking
establishment and 50% of the total floor area of a drinking establishment
without restaurant services.
92
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
b. A malt beverage manufacturer’s license must be obtained per state law
c. An alcohol beverage license must be obtained per city ordinance
d. The brewery shall not produce more than 1,500 barrels of beer or ale per
year. A barrel contains thirty-one (31) gallons.
Article V. Conditional Uses
Division 3 Standards
Sec. 94.251. Generally
Sec. 94.260.3 Brewpub
A Brewpub shall comply with the following conditions:
a. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed
25% of the total floor area of a combined restaurant and drinking
establishment and 50% of the total floor area of a drinking establishment
without restaurant services.
b. A malt beverage manufacturer’s license must be obtained per state law
c. An alcohol beverage license must be obtained per city ordinance
d. The brewery shall not produce more than 1,500 barrels of beer or ale per
year. A barrel contains thirty-one (31) gallons.
e. The method and frequency of grain shipments to the site shall be provided.
f. The method and frequency of spent grain disposal shall be provided.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
93
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance First Readings:
17. Ordinance No. 10-10: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance pertaining to signs.
Public Hearing: February 23rd
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and
the date for the public hearing is announced.
Proposal: Minor modifications have been proposed for signs. An explanation of the
various changes is as follows:
Signs: The proposed changes involve minor adjustments for portable signs and for
temporary signs in table 4. The display time for portable signs has been increased for
strip malls and similar multi-business lots. Some business owners felt the existing
regulation was too restrictive when the allotted annual time had to be shared among
several businesses.
Temporary signs are limited by size but not time since there are several types of signs
that fall under the temporary sign category. The amendment would place an annual
time limit on a sign so they would have to be removed at some point. This amendment
would encourage the investment in permanent signage, which, as a rule, is better
maintained.
The modification to table 2 increases the allowable freestanding signage for institutional
uses when the use fronts on more than one street. Table 3 changes would increase the
size of a sign on a residential lot by 2 square feet and allow up to two signs at any one
time.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission’s recommendation along with the Minutes
and Summary will be in the February 23rd packet.
95
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 10-10
An Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to Signs for the purposes of Administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota that Chapter 94,
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Section 94-470 Regulations for all districts
(e). Portable Signs. Portable signs shall be regulated as follows:
1. A portable sign displayed on a lot shall be subject to a fee established by the
governing body.
2. Portable signs may be displayed on a lot for ninety (90) permit days per calendar year.
Permits shall be issued for a maximum of 30 consecutive days with a minimum of 30
consecutive days between the permit expiration date and the issuance of a new
permit.
Exceptions:
a. Portable signs exceeding 32 square feet shall be allowed on a lot for up to 7
days within a maximum permit period.
b. Portable signs, on a lot containing a strip mall or similar building with 5 or
more businesses, may be displayed for 180 days per calendar year. Permits
shall be issued for a maximum of 30 consecutive days with a minimum of 15
consecutive days between the permit expiration date and the issuance of a
new permit.
3. Portable signs shall be secured against overturning.
Section 2.
TABLE 2
MAXIMUM TOTAL SIGN AREA PER LOT BY ZONING DISTRICT
The maximum total area of all signs on a lot except for incidental, building marker and flags(a)
shall not exceed the lesser of the following:
DISTRICT
FW A ALL
R’S
RB-4 B-1 B-2A B-2
(b)
B-3
(b)
B-4
(b)
ALL
I’S
INS
(c)
Maximum total square feet 750 750 16 200 400 200 400 500 800 600 32
Maximum total square feet for
lots with 2 or more frontage 1,000 1,000 NA 300 600 300 600 800 1000 NA 32 56
Square feet of signage per
linear foot of street frontage 1 1 NA 2 6 2 1 1 1.5 NA NA
Square feet of signage per
linear foot of street frontage
for corner lots (d)
NA NA NA 1 3 1 1 1 1.5 NA NA
96
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
SECTION 94-473
TABLE 3
NUMBER, DIMENSIONS, AND LOCATION OF INDIVIDUAL SIGNS BY ZONING DISTRICT
Individual signs shall not exceed the maximum number or square footage nor encroach into the
minimum setback shown on this table (Cross Ref. Table 4)
SIGN TYPE FW A ALL
R’S
RB-4 B-1 B-2A B-2 B-3 B-4 ALL I’S INS
(a)
FREESTANDING (f)
Area (S.F.) 240 240 6 8 40 60 40 160 160 240 160 32
Height (Ft.) 30 30 5 15(b) 15 15(b) 30(b) 30(b) 60 30(b) 10
Right of way setback (Ft.)
(c)
10 10 3 0 0 5 5 5 5 10 5
Number permitted per
lot
NA NA 1 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Number permitted per
feet of
street frontage (d)
1 for
each
1000
1 for
each
1000
NA
1 for
each
100
1 for
each
200
1 for
each
200
1 for
each
300
1 for
each
300
1 for
each
400
1 for
each
500
1 for
each
frtg.
BUILDING (f)
Area (S.F.) NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 24
Wall area (%) (e) 10 10 NA 10 20 10 15 15 20 5 NA
SECTION 94-473 Tables
TABLE 4
NUMBER AND DIMENSIONS OF CERTAIN SIGNS BY SIGN TYPE
SIGN TYPE
NUMBER
ALLOWED
MAXIMUM
SIGN AREA (SF)
VERTICAL
CLEARANCE FROM
SIDEWALK (Ft)
HORIZONTAL
CLEARANCE FROM
CURB (Ft)
FREESTANDING
Area Identification 1 per entrance
Billboard
Bulletin Board
Ground
Incidental 4
Outdoor Menu Board
Pylon
Residential See Table 3
BUILDING
Awning (a) 8 2
Awning, Electric (a) 8 2
Banner, Wall (a)
Building Marker 1 per building 4
Canopy (a) 8 2
Identification 1 per building
97
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Marquee (a) 8 2
Projecting (b) 1 per bldg face 48 10 2
Roof (a) 1 per building
Roof, Integral (a) 2 per building
Suspended 1 per entrance 8
Wall (a)
Wall, Painted (a)
Window
MISCELLANEOUS
Banner (c) 2 8 2
Banner, Pole 8 2
Flag 8 2
Inflatable (c) 1
Pennant (c)
Portable (c) 1 32(d)
Temporary (e) 2 16 (each)
a. Sign area for this sign shall be applied to the maximum allowable wall area from Table 3.
b. One sign shall be permitted for each building face fronting a public street.
c. Allowed as per section 94-470(e), (f) and (g).
d. Exception allowed as per section 94-470(e), (f) and (g).
e. Signs shall be displayed on a lot for no more than 6 months in any calendar year.
Section 3. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: February 9, 2010
Second Reading: February 23, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
____________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
98
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Second Readings / Public Hearings
18. Ordinance No. 01-10: An Ordinance Amending Article I. of
Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings and
Pertaining to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Sunday by the
Off-Sale Licensee in the City of Brookings.
This ordinance allows the liquor store to be open on Sunday. Staff is recommending
limited Sunday hours of operation to be available to customers; hours on Sunday would
be from Noon to 6:00 p.m. The ordinance does not specify the hours of operation as
some operational flexibility would need to be retained for those rare situations, for
example, when New Years Eve falls on a Sunday. The Liquor Store would definitely not
open before noon on Sunday.
The current State law authorizes the proposed amendment to our ordinances as
follows:
35-4-81.1. Alcohol sales - Times when off-sale service prohibited.
No off-sale licensee, licensed under subdivisions 35-4-2(3), (5) [local option off-sale—
Brookings], and (19), may sell, or allow to be sold, alcoholic beverages between the
hours of twelve midnight and seven a.m. of the following day, or sell, or allow to be sold,
distilled spirits or wine on Memorial Day or Christmas Day. In addition, no off-sale
licensee may sell, or allow to be sold, alcoholic beverages on Sunday unless
the municipality or the county by ordinance allows such sales on Sunday.
(emphasis in bold)
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Cal
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION - Approve
103
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Ordinance No. 01-10
An Ordinance Amending Article I. of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Sunday
by the Off-Sale Licensee in the City of Brookings.
Be It Ordained and Enacted by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South
Dakota, as follows:
I.
That Section 6-4 of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings and
pertaining to Sunday Sales is amended to include the following subsection:
Sec. 6-4. Sunday sales permitted by the holders of operating agreements and other licensees.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the municipal off-sale
licensee may sell and allow to be sold alcoholic beverages on Sunday after 7:00 o’clock a.m. for
consumption off the premises where sold.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading: January 26, 2010
Second Reading: February 9, 2010
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
104
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
First Class Cities - - Municipal Liquor Stores - - Off-Sale - - Sunday Sales
Sioux Falls - YES
Came about as a repercussion of Sunday Wine Sales.
Aberdeen - NO
Go with what the State dictates.
Pierre - YES
Passed a little over a year ago. Fort Pierre allowed it, so Pierre changed Ordinance to reflect.
Thought of losing business.
Huron - NO
Tried around August 2009 – failed at the 1st Reading.
Spearfish - YES
Passed Ordinance over 10 years ago.
Sturgis - YES
Has been in effect for a number of years.
Rapid City - YES
Has been in effect for a number of years.
Watertown - NO
Mitchell - NO
Did try to pass Ordinance in summer 2009. Public petitioned. Will be voting on this in
November 2010.
Yankton - YES
Recently changed in 2009.
Vermillion – YES.
Changed within last 4-5 years. Started when New Years fell on a Sunday. Now allow from
Noon-5pm on Sunday.
Madison - NO
Brandon - YES
Changed 2008/2009. Driven by what Sioux Falls was doing.
105
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Other Business
19. Action on Resolution No. 16-10, a Resolution in Support of State
Planning and Research Program Application.
The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) is beginning a pilot program for
conducting transportation planning studies for local agencies. The SDDOT will be dedicating a
portion of its FY2011 Statewide Planning and Research (SPR) Program funding to aid the non-
MPO recipients of federal Statewide Transportation Plan funding in their transportation planning
efforts.
The desired outcomes of the transportation study will be a comprehensive review and analysis
of the City’s transportation system. Categories to be addressed in the study include: major
street plan, bicycle plan, pedestrian plan, and long range (20-year) transportation plan. The
transportation study will assist in scheduling future infrastructure projects from both a planning
and budgetary standpoint.
The transportation study is a prerequisite to moving forward on the 34th Avenue/20th Street
South Project. A comprehensive transportation study will aid the city and the SDDOT in
determining which infrastructure projects are eligible for federal aid. The last transportation
study conducted in the City of Brookings was the Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study completed
in 2008. This localized transportation study identified traffic issues, concerns and alternatives
for the eastern corridor of Brookings. City records don’t indicate when the last time a City-
wide transportation study has been done for Brookings. The transportation study being applied
for would incorporate the information from the Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study into a
comprehensive City-wide study that would provide valuable information to the City of
Brookings and the SDDOT.
The SPR application is due March 1, 2010. Applications are reviewed by the SDDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) review team, with prioritization based upon available
SPR funding and the benefit to the local and statewide transportation systems. Staff met with
SDDOT on January 20th to discuss the application process. The funding requirement is a 20%
local match. However, SDDOT has indicated priority will be given to those applicants willing to
contribute more than the minimum 20% local match. The cost of the transportation study will
not be known until SDDOT selects a consultant.
The transportation study is anticipated to take one year to complete and would coincide with
SDDOT’s fiscal year (July 1st through June 30th). As a reference, the City of Watertown
performed a similar study in 2003 with a cost of approximately $140,000. SDDOT would hold
the contract with the City reimbursing SDDOT the City’s share. The benefit to having the
SDDOT hold the contract is to ensure the scope of work complies with SDDOT requirements
for future funding.
Staff recommends committing $35,000 as the local match for the transportation study.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Cal
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION - Approve
106
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Resolution No. 16-10
Resolution in Support of State Planning and Research Program Application
Whereas, the City of Brookings is desirous in completing a comprehensive transportation
study; and
Whereas, the State of South Dakota has grant funds available for the State Planning and
Research Program for Local Governments: and
Whereas, the City of Brookings is the sponsoring applicant for funds; and
Whereas, the City is prepared to commit Thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) towards the
local match.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the City Council of the City of Brookings supports the
described application for the Brookings Transportation Study project.
Passed and approved this 9th day of February 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
____________________________
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
107
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Other Business
20. Presentation and possible action on location for Youth Sporting
Center/Nature Park Project.
For several years a local group of people has been planning for a new indoor facility
which would accommodate an assortment of indoor shooting sports and related
activities to serve 4-H programs and other youth as well as archery and firearm training
and competition organizations. Originally there were plans developed that would have
included rodeo, other local equestrian clubs in addition to the above activities, and would
have been a large arena type facility somewhere east of 34th Avenue and east of the
Swiftel Center. The rodeo, equestrian and arena portions of the project have been
withdrawn from the picture.
Most recently a scaled-back version was planned as a possibility to be attached to the
north of the R & T Center west of the Swiftel Center, if the County Extension offices
moved into that building. However that plan has now been dropped, as the County
Extension offices are not moving there.
The YES organizing committee now known as OLC (Outdoor Learning Center) has the
opportunity to apply for a sizeable grant from S.D. Game, Fish & Parks to assist in the
furnishing of an indoor facility. However, they need the assurance of a potential site for
the building when submitting the application. Their request is for a parcel of land
somewhere on the Nature Park property, the exact and appropriate location to be
determined as part of the Nature Park Master Plan that will be developed during the
next six months.
The YES group presented their plan to the Nature Park Ad Hoc Committee on
Wednesday night, for their review and recommendation. As explained to the Ad Hoc
Committee, the South Dakota 4-H Foundation will be the umbrella agency under which
the organization would originally operate, although they could eventually become their
own non-profit tax exempt entity. As explained to the Ad Hoc Committee, 4-H
supports this facility not only because of the 4-H Shooting Sports aspect, but also
because 4-H is expanding their youth programs into the areas of nature study, ecology,
fishing, water activities and training (canoeing, kayaking, etc), cross-country skiing, and
snowshoeing.
ESPECIALLY FOR THESE REASONS, it is felt a location at the Nature Park would be
ideal. As explained at the meeting, the facility would operate independently of the city or
county, primarily on a membership basis, but would be a public facility for the Brookings
area and region.
Fourteen citizens on the Nature Park Ad Hoc Committee were present at the meeting
on January 27th. After considerable discussions regarding possible sites, status of a
business plan and operating budget, plus the potential benefits to the Nature Park, the
Committee approved a motion to recommend the city make available a parcel of land,
108
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
up to three acres, for a building and parking lot, the specific location to be determined as
part of the Nature Park Master Plan.
At its regular meeting on Monday evening, Feb 1st, the Park and Recreation Board heard
the same presentation and was asked for a similar recommendation. Again, after lengthy
discussions, the Park and Recreation Board unanimously passed a motion to recommend
the City Council approve the use of property up to 3 acres, at the new Nature Park for
locating a facility that would operate as an Outdoor Learning Center.
The discussion preceding this motion included the stipulation that the specific site be
determined as part of the Nature Park Master Plan process, and with the understanding
that the building be multi-purpose and similar in function to what was presented, with
appropriate partnership agreements in place before any final land commitment or
construction takes place.
Randy Hansen will do a Power Point presentation at the City Council meeting.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Cal
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION – Approve and recommend dedicating up to
three (3) acres for a long term lease.
109
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Other Business
21. Action on Resolution No. 22-10, a Resolution Authorizing the
Purchase of Real Property for the Intergovernmental
Administration Building; Authorizing the Expenditure of Funds
for the Purchase of the Real Property, and Authorizing the
Documents to Effectuate the Terms and Intent of this Resolution
Attached is a resolution which promulgates the purchase agreements for
the subject parcels. The list of parcels to be acquired is attached. It has
grown from the original estimate due to the availability of two more parcels
south of the alley which the Building Committee is recommending the City
purchase.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Cal
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION - Approve
110
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
RESOLUTION NO. 22-10
Resolution Authorizing The Purchase
Of Real Property For The Intergovernmental Administration Building; Authorizing The Expenditure Of
Funds For The Purchase Of The Real Property, And Authorizing The Documents To Effectuate The
Terms And Intent Of This Resolution
__________________
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota (the “City”), as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is authorized to acquire real property pursuant to South Dakota
Codified Law § 9-12-1(2), and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that in order to acquire a desirable site for an Intergovernmental
Administration Building, it is necessary and desirable to acquire the real property described in Exhibit
“A”, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the real property described herein is being acquired by the County of Brookings and the
City of Brookings for an Intergovernmental Administration Building to be owned by each governmental
entity in equal undivided shares, and will be utilized and operated pursuant to the terms of a Joint
Powers Agreement between the County of Brookings and the City of Brookings, and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the real property described in Exhibit “A” shall not exceed One Million
Nine Hundred Thirty-nine Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 ($1,939,500.00) Dollars, with one-half
(1/2) of said cost paid by the County of Brookings at closing, and one-half (1/2) of said cost paid by the
City of Brookings at closing, and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings intends to complete the transactions set forth herein pursuant to
terms, agreements and documents consistent with this Resolution, which shall be incorporated in Real
Estate Purchase Agreements between the owners of the real property as shown on Exhibit “A” and the
County of Brookings and City of Brookings as purchasers, and such other documents as are necessary
to effectuate the terms and intent of this Resolution, NOW THEREFORE,
1. The real estate transactions set forth herein are hereby authorized, and
2. The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City
the documents required to complete the transactions described herein, including Real Estate Purchase
Agreements consistent with the terms of this Resolution in a form satisfactory to the City Manager.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2010.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
111
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Exhibit “A”
Owner Property Street Address Property Legal Description
Vine Street Properties
LLC
512 – 3rd Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
Lot Four (4) in Block Three (3) of the First
Addition to the City of Brookings, County
of Brookings, State of South Dakota.
Blair R. Collins 524 – 3rd Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
Lots One (1) and Two (2) in Block Three
(3) of First Addition to the City of
Brookings, County of Brookings, State of
South Dakota.
Gatzke Family Enterprises 506 – 3rd Street and 222 – 5th
Avenue, Brookings, South
Dakota 57006
Lot “G” in Block Three (3) of the First
Addition to the City of Brookings, County
of Brookings, State of South Dakota.
Darin R. Dobrenski and
Tammy J. Dobrenski
513 Front Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
The East Thirty Feet (E 30') of Lot Eight (8)
in Block Three (3) and that portion of Lot
Eight “A” (8A) abutting and accruing
thereto, of First Addition to the City of
Brookings, County of Brookings, State of
South Dakota.
Shane S. Carlson 510 – 3rd Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
Lot Five (5) in Block Three (3) of First
Addition to the City of Brookings, County
of Brookings, State of South Dakota.
John Patrick Leary and
Eunice J. Leary
216 – 5th Avenue, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
The South Fifty Feet (S 50') of Lots Six (6)
and Seven (7) in Block Three (3) of the First
Addition to the City of Brookings, County
of Brookings, State of South Dakota.
Robert J. Bern 511 Front Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
The West Fifty-six Feet
(W 56') of the East Eighty-six Feet (E 86')
of Lot Eight (8) in Block Three (3) of the
First Addition to the City of Brookings,
County of Brookings, State of South
Dakota AND That portion of the vacated
portion of Front Street (sometimes
known as Lot Eight “A” (8A) of Block
Three (3)) abutting and accruing thereto.
Bruce L. Lentsch and
Maureen J. Lentsch
518 – 3rd Street, Brookings,
South Dakota 57006
Lot Three (3) in Block Three (3) of First
Addition to the City of Brookings, County of
Brookings, State of South Dakota.
112
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Executive Session
22. Executive Session for purposes of consulting with legal counsel on
pending contractual matters.
SDCL 1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings.
Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purpose of:
1. Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness
of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee.
The term “employee” does not include any independent contractors;
2. Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the
educational program of a student;
3. Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal
counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
4. Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a
business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, where public
discussions would be harmful to the competitive position of the business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open official
meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a majority vote of the
members of such body present and voting, and discussion during the closed meeting is
restricted to the purpose specified in the closure motion. Nothing in 1-25-1 or this
section may be construed to prevent an executive or closed meeting if the federal or
state Constitution or the federal or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of
this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Action: Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
113
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
Other Business
23. Possible action on Resolution No. 23-10, pertaining to executive
session contractual matters.
Possible action will depend upon the outcome of the negotiation
deliberations of the executive session. In the event there is action to be
taken, materials will be presented at the time of the meeting.
City Manager Introduction
ACTION: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Cal
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION - Approve
114
City Council Packet
February 9, 2010
115
24. Adjourn.