HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_01_13 CC PKTCity Council Packet
January 13, 2009
1
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council 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
** 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. Update on Campus/Student Housing Issues – SDSU Master Housing Plan.
2. Swiftel Center Events Programming.
3. Transportation Bill.
4. Transportation Board Report.
5. Formation of a Complete Count Committee.
6. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
7. Council Invites & Obligations.
8. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. *
*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. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Meeting Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 01‐09, a Resolution Creating And Establishing A
Committee For The Purpose Of Development And Implementation Of
Coordinated Traffic Safety Programs Within The City Of Brookings to be
known and Designated as the City of Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
D. Action to renew a joint City / School Facility Agreement.
E. Action on Resolution No. 02‐09, a resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO#1
Final) for Brookings Regional Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements
Project AIP #3‐46‐0005‐019‐2006 with Brookings Electric Construction, Inc.
F. Action on Resolution No. 03‐09, a resolution authorizing Change Order
(CCO#1) for 2008‐02STA 15th Street South, Christine Ave. and Camelot Drive
Street Assessment Project with Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
2
* 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/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **:
** 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.
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
7. Ordinance No. 43‐08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two‐
family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
8. Ordinance No. 44‐08: An ordinance rezoning the west 338 feet of the N½ of the
NW¼ of Section 34‐T110N‐R50W, except the south 92 feet thereof, from an
Agricultural a District to a Residence R‐1A District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 46‐08: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the Joint
Jurisdiction Area pertaining to an Agricultural Research Facility as a permitted use in
the Agricultural A District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 47‐08: An ordinance for an application for a conditional use to
establish a beauty shop (hair salon) on Lot 9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also
known as 1108 Telluride Circle.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business:
11. TABLED: Resolution No. 115‐08, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to
Private Person (ADVANCE).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action on amendment, request public comment, roll call
Action on main motion as amended, request public comment, roll call
12. Action on City of Brookings “Guidelines for the use of Tax Increment Finance.”
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
13. Potential projects for Federal Economic Stimulus Package.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
3
14. Preview of 2009 Capital Construction Items.
Informational
15. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council
Scott Munsterman, Mayor
Tim Reed, Deputy Mayor
Mike Bartley, Council Member
Tom Bezdichek, Council Member
Ryan Brunner, Council Member
Mike McClemans, 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.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
4
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. Update on Campus/Student Housing Issues – SDSU
Master Housing Plan.
Vice President Marysz Rames has been invited to provide the City Council with an
update on campus and student housing issues, particularly SDSU’s campus housing
master planning efforts.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
5
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. Swiftel Center Events Programming.
At a previous meeting, Councilman Bezdichek requested the Council discuss whether or
not to permit Cage Fighting (Mixed Martial Arts) as an event at the Swiftel Center. This
item is on the agenda for this purpose.
City Attorney Steve Britzman provided the enclosed Sioux Falls Ordinance on Ultimate
Fighting for the Council’s information.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
11
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. Transportation Bill.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Proposed legislation authorizing a special service district for
transportation districts
Last year, a bill was introduced in the South Dakota Legislature that would have
authorized local units of government to create special service districts for purposes of
generating revenue for transportation improvement projects, as well as manage and
oversee the construction of those projects. The bill passed a Senate committee but
failed on the floor.
Given the current condition of state finances for transportation improvements, this bill
would have provided a new mechanism for generating funding at the local level for local
projects based on local option authority. The attached document is a proposed bill
ready for introduction that is very similar to the bill of the last legislative session. It
authorizes a local unit of government, or a combination of local units of government, to
create a special service district that can levy taxes for purposes of making transportation
improvements to whatever extent, scope, magnitude deemed necessary by an elected
board of the district. The transportation district is totally locally-controlled and it’s
taxing and spending authority can be determined based upon the transportation needs
of the district however it is comprised. All policy actions are subject to referral just like
other local units of government.
The following is a section-by-section summary analysis of the bill.
Section 1 definitions
Section 2 authorizes existing local units of government to establish a special service
district (transportation district) and appoint the first board of supervisors until an
election is held.
Section 3 prescribes the process for establishing the transportation district via a
petition of the local units of government.
Section 4 requires a public hearing for the creation of the transportation district.
After said hearing, the participating local units of government may enter an order
creating said district.
Section 5 prescribes the process by which the district boundaries can be modified over
time to reflect changing transportation needs.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
12
Section 6 prescribes powers and authorities of the transportation district board of
supervisors to be the same as counties and municipalities enumerated under SDCL
Chapter 11-9. The board may enter into contracts, hire professional services, apply for
grant funding, appropriate funds, levy taxes, charge fees, issue debt, undertake
construction projects, exercise eminent domain (within limitations) enter into joint
powers agreements, acquire easements and rights-of-ways, impose and foreclose special
assessment liens, and enter into leases. This section also allows for the imposition of
sales, service, retail, and use tax as long as it conforms to state law except that the rate
shall not exceed two (2) percent. Other non-ad valorem taxes may be imposed that are
consistent with SDCL Chapter 10-52.
Section 7 provides for a board of supervisors comprising of five (5) members elected
for six (6) year terms whom may be chosen at large or from designated geographic
areas within the district.
Section 8 prescribes the process for elections of the board of supervisors. Elections
shall be for staggered terms with the first election being no later than the date of the
first general municipal election following the formation of the district.
Section 9 prescribes that board of supervisor elections shall be conducted as other
elections under applicable state law. The district shall pay election costs.
Section 10 requires board elections to be held consistent with applicable state law.
Section 11 provides for the conduct of elections which may be held jointly with
elections for schools, counties, or municipalities.
Section 12 provides that board members shall be called “supervisors” and provides for
filling vacancies that occur during the term.
Section 13 specifies a majority of the board constitutes a quorum for purposes of
conducting business. Official action requires a vote of the supervisors.
Section 14 requires the board to elect a chairperson and select a secretary who may
or may not be a member of the board. The board may appoint other officers it deems
necessary.
Section 15 provides for compensation of board members set by the board or by
voters in a referendum election. Mileage and per diem expenses may be reimbursed as
set by the board.
Section 16 authorizes the board to hire a district manager and set his or her
compensation. The manager is responsible for activities of the district.
Section 17 provides for initiative and referral as prescribed in SDCL Chapter 9-20.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
13
Section 18 clarifies the absence of a conflict of interest between board roles and
certain private roles.
Section 19 requires the district develop and maintain a five-year capital improvement
plan.
Section 20 authorizes the district manager to hire/fire other staff as authorized by the
board as well as set compensation and other employment conditions of said staff.
Section 21 requires the board to designate a treasurer and prescribes financial
responsibilities of that person.
Section 22 authorizes the board to select a financial institution for its funds pursuant
to SDCL 9-22-6 and 9-22-6.1.
Section 23 authorizes the board to issue debt pursuant to SDCL Chapter 9-25 for its
projects with a term limit of 30 years.
Section 24 authorizes the board to issue warrants and other negotiable notes; for
purposes of defraying expenses; and to pledge assets of the district.
Section 25 authorizes the board to issue and sell bonds or other forms of debt for
purposes of financing its projects. The board may pledge income and other revenues to
secure payment of the debt. All debt must follow SDCL Chapter 6-8B.
Section 26 prescribes requirements for the management of the debt and use of any
surplus.
Section 27 describes that all bonds constitute legal investments for financial
institutions.
Section 28 disclaims any default of debt of the district does not constitute a debt or
obligation of a local unit of government or the state.
Section 29 authorizes the board to issue property taxes in the amount not to exceed
two dollars per one thousand dollars per taxable value. Such taxes shall be in addition
to all other duly-levied property taxes and assessed, levied, collected in the same
manner as all other property taxes.
Section 30 provides for the treatment of delinquency of ad valorem property taxes
subject to same provisions as other county taxes.
Section 31 provides that interest on bonds is exempt from all taxes by the state or
other local units of government.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
14
Section 32 authorizes the board to levy special assessments for the construction,
reconstruction, or acquisition of projects pursuant to SDCL 9-43. The assessments
shall be payable in 30 annual installments. The assessments constitute a continuing lien
on real property. The board may further obtain loans, notes, warrants, or other
evidences of debt; issue or sell bonds or other indebtedness to finance its projects.
Section 33 provides that district taxes and assessments be treated like all other
property taxes and assessments pursuant to state law as they pertain to redemption
from tax sales; collection and delinquencies; payment and receipt; sale of real property
for taxes and assessments.
Section 34 requires a public hearing to be held by the district prior to enacting any
rates, fees, rentals or other charges. Further requires notice of said hearing.
Section 35 requires that duly-adopted schedules for fees, rentals, and charges be kept
on file and shall be subject to cover any additional users or properties thereafter served
which shall fall in the same class without requiring any further notice or hearing.
Section 36 requires said fees, rentals, or charges to be fair, uniform and equitable to all
users of the same class of property and at least sufficient to provide for the operation
and debt service of the district’s obligations.
Section 37 authorizes delinquencies of fees, rentals, charges that exceed 60 days plus
interest and reasonable attorney fees may be recovered by the district in a civil action.
Section 38 authorizes the board to enter into contracts for services and facilities of
the district.
Section 39 authorizes local units of government to transfer jurisdiction of roads,
streets, or rails to the district.
Section 40 requires a petition for any modification to the geographic boundaries of an
existing district be filed with the local government official of each jurisdiction affected by
the existing or modified boundaries. Prescribes requirements of the petition.
Section 41 authorizes the governing board of the jurisdiction having the largest
geographic share of the district the discretionary authority, via petition, to order the
expansion, termination, or contraction of the district.
Section 42 requires the local unit of government, having taken action of Section 41, to
schedule a hearing on the issue of expansion, termination, or contraction of the district;
and prescribes requirements for notice of said hearing.
Section 43 lists the considerations the local governing body must deliberate at said
hearing pursuant to Sections 41 and 42.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
15
Section 44 authorizes the governing body of the largest single jurisdiction to enter an
order modifying the district boundaries following the hearing provided all requirements
have been met setting forth findings and conclusions.
Section 45 requires that said order described in Section 44 be filed with the Secretary
of State.
SENATE BILL 183
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to permit the creation of a transportation district and to
establish its powers and bonding authority.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. Terms used in this Act mean:
(1) "Board" or "board of supervisors," the governing board of the district;
(2) "Bond," any general obligation bond, assessment bond, refunding bond, revenue
bond, and other obligation in the nature of a bond as is provided for in this Act, as the case may
be. This term includes, certificate, and the provisions which are applicable to bonds are equally
applicable to certificates;
(3) "Cost," if used with reference to any project, includes:
(a) The expenses of determining the feasibility or practicability of acquisition,
construction, or reconstruction;
(b) The cost of surveys, estimates, plans, and specifications;
(c) The cost of improvements;
(d) Engineering, fiscal, and legal expenses and charges;
(e) The cost of all labor, materials, machinery, and equipment;
(f) The cost of all lands, properties, rights, easements, and franchises acquired;
(g) Financing charges;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
16
(h) The creation of initial reserve and debt service funds;
(i) Working capital;
(j) Interest charges incurred or estimated to be incurred on money borrowed prior
to and during construction and acquisition and for a reasonable period of time after completion
of construction or acquisition as the board may determine;
(k) The cost of issuance of bonds pursuant to this Act, including advertisements and
printing;
(l) The cost of any election held pursuant to this Act and all other expenses of
issuance of bonds;
(m) The discount, if any, on the sale or exchange of bonds;
(n) Administrative expenses; and
(o) Such other expenses as may be necessary or incidental to the acquisition,
construction, or reconstruction of any project or to the financing thereof, or to the
development of any lands within the district;
(4) "District," the transportation district as a body politic and corporate exercising
essential public functions;
(4A) "District airports," all airport runways, airport taxiways, and all other airport
facilities and real property;"
(5) "District rail," all track, right-of-way, bridges, mainlines, branchlines, spurs,
sidetracks, interchanges, and all other fixtures and real property;
(6) "District right-of-way," all right-of-way;
(7) "District roads," highways, streets, roads, alleys, sidewalks, storm drains, bridges,
and thoroughfares of all kinds and descriptions;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
17
(8) "Transportation district," a local unit of special purpose government which is
created pursuant to this Act and limited to the performance of those functions authorized by
this Act, the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and authorized to function
specifically as prescribed in this Act;
(9) "Landowner" or "owner," any individual, firm, or corporation, public or private,
or public agency, who has legal title to real property as shown by the records of the register of
deeds of the county in which the real property is situated;
(10) "Local government," any county, municipality, township or any combination
thereof;
(11) "Project," any development, improvement, property, road, rail, facility, works,
or service now existing or hereafter undertaken or established by the district.
Section 2. Any local governments may establish by order a transportation district and
define and fix the boundaries thereof, which may be wholly within one or more local
governments. The local government shall appoint the first board of supervisors to act until the
first election, as provided in this Act.
Section 3. If a petition praying that a transportation district be established signed by the
governing body of a local government or signed by not less than five percent of the resident
electors residing within the boundaries of the proposed transportation district is filed with the
local government auditor or finance officer of the local government within which the district is
situated, the petition shall be presented by the local government auditor or finance officer to
the board of each local government into which the district extends at the first ensuing regular,
adjourned, or special meeting of the board. The petition shall definitely describe the boundaries
of the proposed district and request that the territory within the boundaries be organized into
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
18
a transportation district. A duplicate of the petition shall be filed with the local government
auditor or finance officer of each local government where the district extends in more than one
local government.
Section 4. Within forty-five days of the filing of the petition, a hearing shall be held
concerning the creation of the district. Notice of the hearing shall be published twice in the
official newspaper of the local government within the proposed district, the second notice not
less than fifteen days prior to the hearing. If the proposed district extends into more than one
local government, the hearing shall be held at the local government having the largest portion of
its territory included within the boundaries of the proposed district. Upon conclusion of any
hearing, each local government governing body may enter an order creating the district. Each
local government in which the district is located shall vote on the same date.
Section 5. The boundaries of any district may be altered and outlying districts annexed from
territory contiguous to the district in the following manner. A petition of a local government or
a petition by sixty percent of the registered electors residing in the territory proposed to be
annexed, designating the boundaries of such contiguous territory proposed to be annexed and
asking that the territory be annexed to the district, shall be presented to the board of
supervisors. At the first regular meeting after the presentation of the petition, the board shall
cause notice of the petition to be published in two successive issues of an official newspaper
published in each local government in which the district is situated prior to the date fixed by
the board for a hearing of the petition, which date may not be less than four weeks after the
filing of the petition. Upon the date fixed for the hearing or continuance of hearing, the board
shall take up and consider the petition and any objections which may be filed to the inclusion of
any additional area or territory in the district. The board may, by order entered on its minutes,
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
19
grant or deny the petition, and, by order entered on its minutes, may alter the boundaries of
the district and annex the district to the area or territory described in the petition. This
territory shall become and be a part of the district and shall be subject to the taxes as are
authorized by this Act, together with the preexisting area of the district.
Section 6. The district shall have, and the board may exercise, the following powers:
(1) To sue and be sued in the name of the district;
(2) To adopt and use a seal and authorize the use of a facsimile of the seal;
(3) To acquire, by purchase, gift, devise, or otherwise, real and personal property, or
any estate therein;
(4) To make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient
to the exercise of the district's powers;
(5) To contract for the services of consultants to perform planning, engineering,
legal, or other appropriate services of a professional nature;
(6) To borrow money and accept gifts;
(7) To apply for and use grants, or loans of money or other property from the
United States, the state, a unit of local government, or any person for any district purposes and
enter into agreements required in connection therewith;
(8) To hold, use, and dispose of such moneys or property for any district purposes
in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto;
(9) To maintain an office at such place or places as it may designate within the
district, which office shall be reasonably accessible to the landowners;
(10) To hold, control, and acquire by donation or purchase any public easements,
dedications to public use, platted reservations for public purposes, or any reservations for
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
20
those purposes authorized by this Act and to make use of such easements, dedications or
reservations for any of the purposes authorized by this Act;
(11) To lease as lessor or lessee to or from any person, firm, limited liability
company, corporation, association or body, public or private, any projects of the type that the
district may undertake and projects or property of any nature for the use of the district to
carry out any of the purposes authorized by this Act;
(12) To borrow money and issue bonds, certificates, warrants, notes, or other
evidence of indebtedness as provided by this Act;
(13) To levy such tax and special assessments as may be authorized by this Act;
(14) To charge, collect, and enforce fees and other user charges;
(15) To raise, by user charges or fees authorized by resolution of the board,
amounts of money which are necessary for the conduct of the district activities and services
and to enforce their receipt and collection in the manner prescribed by resolution not
inconsistent with law;
(16) To undertake any project or projects as the board deems necessary;
(17) To exercise within the district the right and power of eminent domain, pursuant
to the provisions of chapters 7-18 and 9-27 and over any property within the state, except
municipal,township, county, state, and federal property, for the uses and purposes of the
district relating solely to district roads, district airports or district rail;
(18) To cooperate with, or contract with, other governmental agencies as may be
necessary, convenient, incidental, or proper in connection with any of the powers, duties, or
purposes authorized by this Act;
(19) To assess and impose upon lands in the district ad valorem taxes in an amount
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
21
not greater than two dollars per thousand;
(20) To impose and foreclose special assessment liens as provided by this Act;
(21) To exercise such powers as may be authorized by this Act and in accordance
with the provisions of chapters 1-24 and 1-25;
(22) To plan, establish, acquire, accept jurisdiction for, construct or reconstruct,
enlarge or extend, equip, operate, and maintain district roads, district airports and district rails,
all of which shall be exempt from property taxation;
(23) To impose a non-ad valorem tax in the same manner as chapter 10-52, by
ordinance enacted by its board of supervisors. However, no tax may be levied on the sale, use,
storage and consumption of items taxed under chapters 10-45 and 10-46, unless the tax
conforms in all respects to the state tax on such items with the exception of the rate, and the
rate levied does not exceed two percent; and
(24) To have all powers conferred upon counties and municipalities under chapter
11-9.
Section 7. The board of the district may exercise the powers granted to the district
pursuant to this Act. The board shall consist of five members. Each elected member shall hold
office for a term of six years and until the member's successor is chosen and qualifies. Each
member of the board shall be citizens of the United States. The order establishing the board
may require that board members be chosen at large or by district established by population or
geographical designation.
Section 8. The board shall schedule an election of board members to be held not later than
the date of the first general municipal election following the formation of the district. At the
first election, one board member shall be elected for a six-year term, two members shall be
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
22
elected for a four-year term, and two members shall be elected for a two-year term. The
candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall serve a six-year term, the two candidates
receiving the next highest number of votes shall serve four-year terms, and the two candidates
receiving the next highest number of votes shall serve two-year terms. In succeeding elections,
each board member shall be elected for a six-year term. All elected board members shall be
registered voters residing within the boundaries of the district.
Section 9. Any election pursuant to this Act shall be conducted, canvassed, recounted, and
contested as other elections under the general municipal election laws of this state. The district
shall pay for any election costs.
Section 10. Any candidate seeking election to office shall conduct the candidate's campaign
in accordance with the provisions of Title 12.
Section 11. The district supervisor of elections shall appoint the inspectors and clerks of
elections, prepare and furnish the ballots, designate polling places, and canvass the returns of
the election. The district may jointly hold any election with a municipality, school district, or
county.
Section 12. Members of the board shall be known as supervisors and, upon entering into
office, shall take and subscribe to the oath of office as prescribed by law. They shall hold office
for the terms for which they were elected or appointed and until their successors are chosen
and qualified. If, during the term of office, a vacancy occurs, the remaining members of the
board shall fill the vacancy by an appointment for the remainder of the unexpired term.
Section 13. A majority of the members of the board constitutes a quorum for the purposes
of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes. Action taken by
the district shall be upon a vote of a majority of the members.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
23
Section 14. As soon as practicable after each election or appointment, the board shall
organize by electing one of its members as chair and by electing a secretary, who need not be a
member of the board, and such other officers as the board may deem necessary.
Section 15. Each member of the board of supervisors shall receive for the member's service
shall be set by the board of supervisors or an amount established by the electors at
referendum. In addition, each supervisor shall receive travel and per diem expenses as set by
the board.
Section 16. The board shall employ, and fix the compensation of, a district manager. The
district manager shall supervise the works of the district and is responsible for preserving and
maintaining any improvement or facility constructed or erected pursuant to the provisions of
this Act, for maintaining and operating the equipment owned by the district, and for performing
such other duties as may be prescribed by the board.
Section 17. Voters of the district may initiate and refer in the same manner as chapter 9-20.
Section 18. It is not a conflict of interest for members of the board, the district manager, or
other employee of the district to be a landowner, or a stockholder, officer, or employee of a
landowner.
Section 19. The district shall develop and maintain a five-year plan on the annual projected
revenues and the annual projected expenditures for district. The projected expenditures shall
itemize the projected costs for new or additional district roads, district airports and district rail.
Section 20. The district manager may hire or otherwise employ and terminate the
employment of such other persons, including professional, supervisory, and clerical employees,
as may be necessary and authorized by the board. The compensation and other conditions of
employment of the officers and employees of the district shall be as provided by the board.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
24
Section 21. The board shall designate a person as treasurer of the district, who shall
have charge of the funds of the district. The funds shall be disbursed only upon the order, or
pursuant to the resolution, of the board by warrant or check countersigned by the treasurer
and by such other person as may be authorized by the board. The board may give the treasurer
other or additional powers and duties as the board may deem appropriate and may fix the
treasurer's compensation. The board may require the treasurer to give a bond in such amount,
on such terms, and with such sureties as may be deemed satisfactory to the board to secure
the performance by the treasurer of the treasurer's powers and duties.
Section 22. The board may select as a depository for its funds any qualified public
depository as set out in § § 9-22-6 and 9-22-6.1.
Section 23. The district at any time may obtain loans pursuant to chapter 9-25, in such
amount and on such terms and conditions as the board may approve, for the purpose of paying
any of the expenses of the district or any costs incurred or that may be incurred in connection
with any of the projects of the district. The loans shall bear such interest as the board may
determine and may be payable from and secured by a pledge of such funds, revenues, taxes, and
assessments as the board may determine, subject, however, to the provisions contained in any
proceeding under which bonds were theretofore issued and are then outstanding.
Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 9-25, the terms of these loans may not exceed thirty
years.
Section 24. For the purpose of defraying costs and expenses, the district may issue
negotiable notes, warrants, or other evidences of debt to be payable at such times, to bear such
interest as the board may determine in compliance with law and to be sold or discounted at
such price or prices and on such terms as the board may deem advisable. The board may
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
25
provide for the payment thereof by pledging the whole or any part of the funds, revenues,
taxes, and assessments of the district. All notes shall be authorized, issued, and sold as provided
in chapter 6-8B, except no election may be held.
Section 25. To undertake, accomplish, and complete any project or projects within the
powers granted the board, the board may issue and sell bonds and other forms of indebtedness
in such amount as the board may determine, for the purpose of acquiring, constructing,
completing, or remodeling, maintaining, or equipping any district road or district rail; refunding
and refinancing the same from time to time as often as advantageous and in the public interest
to do so. The board may pledge any income of the district, and any revenues derived by the
district from the facilities, or any combination thereof, to secure payment of the bonds and to
redeem the bonds. All districts bonds shall be authorized, issued, and sold as provided in
chapter 6-8B, except no election may be held to issue bonds other than those required by S.D.
Const., Art. XIII, § 4.
Section 26. The board may make such provision with respect to the defeasance of the right,
title, and interest of the holders of any of the bonds and obligations of the district in any
revenues, funds, or other properties by which the bonds are secured as the board deems
appropriate. The board may provide that when the bonds or obligations become due and
payable or have called for redemption and the whole amount of the principal and interest and
premium, if any, due and payable upon the bonds or obligations then outstanding shall be held
in trust for such purpose and provision shall also be made for paying all other sums payable in
connection with the bonds or other obligations, then and if the right, title, and interest of the
holders of the bonds in any revenues, funds, or other properties by which such bonds are
secured shall thereupon cease, terminate, and become void. The board may apply any surplus in
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
26
any sinking fund established in connection with such bonds or obligations and all balances
remaining in all other funds or accounts other than money held for the redemption or payment
of the bonds or other obligations to any lawful purpose of the district as the board shall
determine.
Section 27. Notwithstanding any provisions of any other law to the contrary, all bonds
issued under the provisions of this Act shall constitute legal investments for savings and loans,
savings banks, banks, trust companies, insurance companies, executors, administrators, trustees,
conservators, and other fiduciaries.
Section 28. A default on the bonds or obligations of a district does not constitute a debt or
obligation of a local government or the state.
Section 29. The board may levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable property in
the district to construct, operate, and maintain projects; to pay the principal of, and interest on,
any general obligation bonds of the district; and to provide for any sinking or other funds
established in connection with any bonds. An ad valorem tax levied by the board for operating
purposes, exclusive of debt service on bonds, may not exceed two dollars per one thousand
dollars per taxable value. The ad valorem tax shall be in addition to county and all other ad
valorem taxes. The tax shall be assessed, levied, and collected in the same manner and at the
same time as county taxes.
Section 30. Any ad valorem taxes provided for in this Act become delinquent and bear
penalties on the amount of the taxes in the same manner as county taxes.
Section 31. Interest on all bonds issued pursuant to this Act is exempt from all taxes by the
state or by any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
Section 32. The board may levy special assessments for the construction, reconstruction,
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
27
or acquisition of projects authorized under this Act using the procedures provided in chapter
9-43. The district assessments may be made payable in thirty annual installments. Such special
assessments are a continuing lien on the real property as against all persons except the United
States and the state. The district may obtain loans, issue negotiable notes, warrants, or other
evidences of debt or issue and sell bonds and other forms of indebtedness to finance the
construction, reconstruction, or acquisition of a project or projects authorized by this Act
prior to the time the board levies special assessments for such project or projects.
Section 33. The provisions of chapters 10-21, 10-22, 10-23, 10-24, and 10-25, shall be
applicable to district taxes and special assessments with the same force and effect as if such
provisions were expressly set forth in this Act.
Section 34. No such rates, fees, rentals, or other charges for any of the facilities or services
of the district may be fixed until after a public hearing at which all the users of the proposed
facility or services or owners, tenants, or occupants served or to be served thereby and all
other interested persons shall have an opportunity to be heard concerning the proposed rates,
fees, rentals, or other charges. Notice of the public hearing setting forth the proposed schedule
of rates, fees, rentals, and other charges shall be published in a newspaper in the county and of
general circulation in the district at least once and at least ten days prior to the public hearing.
The hearing may be adjourned from time to time.
Section 35. After the hearing, any schedule, either as initially proposed or as modified or
amended, may be finally adopted. A copy of the schedule of the rates, fees, rentals, or charges
as finally adopted shall be kept on file in an office designated by the board and shall be open at
all reasonable times to public inspection. The rates, fees, rentals, or charges so fixed for any
class of users or property served shall be extended to cover any additional users or properties
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
28
thereafter served which shall fall in the same class, without the necessity of any notice or
hearing.
Section 36. The rates, fees, rentals, and charges shall be just and equitable and uniform for
users of the same class and shall be such as will produce revenues, together with any other
assessments, taxes, revenues, or funds available or pledged for such purpose, at least sufficient
to provide for the items hereinafter listed, but not necessarily in the order stated:
(1) To provide for all expenses of operation and maintenance of such district roads, ,
district airports, district rails, or service;
(2) To pay when due all bonds and interest thereon for the payment of which such
revenues are, or shall have been, pledged or encumbered, including reserves for such purpose;
and
(3) To provide for any other funds which may be required under the resolution or
resolutions authorizing the issuance of bonds pursuant to this Act.
Section 37. If any rates, fees, rentals, charges, or delinquent penalties have not been paid
when due and have been in default for sixty days or more, the unpaid balance thereof and all
interest accrued thereon, together with reasonable attorney's fees and costs, may be recovered
by the district in a civil action.
Section 38. The board may enter into contracts for the use of the projects of the district
and with respect to the services and facilities furnished or to be furnished by the district.
Section 39. Local governments may transfer jurisdiction over road or rail to the district.
Section 40. A petition for the expansion, termination, or contraction of a transportation
district shall be filed with the local government auditor or finance officer of each local
government in which the district is located.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
29
The petition shall contain:
(1) A copy of the order establishing the district;
(2) A written request to expand, terminate, or contract of the district;
(3) A statement explaining the reasons for the proposed expansion, termination, or
contraction of the district;
(4) For a proposed termination or contraction of the district, a statement that all
debts will be paid or assumed;
(5) A copy of a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors approving the
proposed petition; and
(6) In the case of expansion, the proposed timetable for construction of district
services to the expanded area, and the estimated cost of constructing the services.
Section 41. The governing body of the local government in which the majority of land in the
area in which the district is located, upon petition, may order the expansion, termination, or
contraction of the district as provided by this Act.
Section 42. Upon the filing of the petition, the governing body of the local government shall
schedule a hearing to hear objections to the petition and shall give notice of the time and place
fixed for the hearing by publication once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation in each local government in which the district is located. The second
notice may not be published more than thirty days nor less than ten days before the hearing.
Section 43. The governing body of the local government after conducting a hearing
pursuant to this Act shall consider whether:
(1) All statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and
correct;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
30
(2) All the debts will be paid or assumed prior to termination;
(3) In the sound discretion of the governing body, there is good cause for
termination or contraction of the district;
(4) In a proposed expansion, the expansion of the district is consistent with any
applicable comprehensive plan or effective local government plan;
(5) In a proposed expansion, the affected area is sufficiently contiguous to the
existing district to be developable with the existing district as one functional interrelated
community; and
(6) In a proposed expansion, the probable beneficial impact of the expansion of the
district outweighs any probable adverse socioeconomic impact of the proposed expansion of
the district.
Section 44. Upon conclusion of the hearing, if the governing body of the local government
determines all requirements have been satisfied, the governing body may enter an order
granting the expansion, termination, or contraction of the district and setting forth its findings
and conclusions.
Section 45. A certified copy of the order establishing the district or granting the petition for
the expansion, termination, or contraction of a district shall be filed with the secretary of state.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
31
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. Transportation Board Report.
The Transportation Board Report was presented to the City Council at their December
9th meeting. Mayor Munsterman requested further review of the report at a work
session
Background: At the November meeting of the Transportation Board, the Board
approved the final report and is transmitted herewith to the City Council. The Board
determined this report should be updated every two years with the intervening year a
time for implementation of recommendations from the previous year’s report. Like
everything else, the extent of implementation is dependent upon available funding. This
way, the report is assured of being a comprehensive planning tool instead of a typical
one-time analysis that is seldom utilized.
It is important to make the distinction of what this is and what it is not. This report
includes a comprehensive analysis of the current transportation system serving
Brookings as it relates to mass transit and bicycling as an alternative mode of
transportation. To maintain consistency, the Council’s adopted policies of bike lanes
are integrated into this report. This report is not a traffic analysis, street system analysis,
or a masterplan for new streets. These items are beyond the scope of the Board’s
mission. However, there is a section devoted to the provision of way-finding signage.
The Board will meet again early next year to begin the action plan for many of the
projects.
Excerpt from the Dec. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Report from the Brookings Transportation Board.
Weldon presented this report as the final product from the Brookings Transportation Board
constituted last March. This report represents participation not only from the board, but also
from the providers in the community on a wide variety of transportation issues primarily related
to transit. They had a couple of excellent tools, with some reports prepared by North Dakota
State University. NDSU did some analysis relative to a fixed route system in Brookings. This
report is intended to be a living document which will be up for renewal by this board for review
and amendment every two years with the off-year being an implementation year to incorporate
some of the recommendations, with being subject to funding availability. It will be an
opportunity to get some transit improvement projects in the works.
Council Discussion: Munsterman would like to put this on a January work session and spend
time walking through it. He feels it is very well done and is a great start for the Transportation
Board.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
32
Reed asked if he could get a cost estimate on way-finding signage before the council discussion.
Weldon stated they could, but his only hesitation would be a matter of how many and location,
as the scope of this analysis did not look at specific placement. It would take a bit more
detailed work, and would have to look at which locations for which types of signs. The report
has a list that is intended to be as comprehensive as we could possibly think of, with the
possibility of more.
Reed wondered about asking staff how they see this section proceeding. He would like to know
by budget time in 2009 to know if there’s something that could be done. Brunner suggested
adding this to the 5 or 10 year capital plan, as items there are of particular need.
Whaley questioned why emergency planning received only two votes and wondered what that
consisted of. Weldon could not recall, but will look at his notes and let Whaley know.
Reed wondered about looking at North Dakota’s study. They had a section on emergency
planning which might be a place to look that it could have gotten pulled from.
NOTE: The report attachments with color maps are not included in this packet. For a
complete copy of the report, please refer to the December 9, 2008 City Council Packet.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
34
Executive Summary
The City of Brookings Transportation Board met eight times from inception to the completion
of this report. Meeting dates were: February 19, 2008; March 25, 2008; April 15, 2008; May 20,
2008; June 17, 2008; August 19, 2008; September 16, 2008; October 21. 2008. All meetings
were open to the public and held at Brookings City Hall. In addition to Board members,
service providers were frequent attendees at the Board meetings and were invaluable in
providing technical assistance, information, and suggestions to the Board’s dialogue.
The Board was greatly assisted by two (2) technical reports analyzing the Brookings
transportation system. They are: City of Brookings: Transportation Gap Analysis &
Recommendations (August, 2007); and Campus Transit Development Planning: A Case Study
(July, 2007), which was prepared for Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA). Both reports
were prepared by the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center, Upper Great Plains Transportation
Institute of North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
The Board analyzed the scope and extent of service provided by each service provider to
better understand their respective operations, where gaps in service may exist, and where
duplication may exist. Primary service providers are:
Brookings Area Transit Authority: (provider)
Provides advance reservation, dial-a-ride, at-door service with limited fixed route service in a
system of mini-buses seven days a week. There is a split fee system for advance day and same
day service calls.
Brookings Taxi: (provider)
Provides private, on-demand, at-door service Friday and Saturday from 8 pm to 3 am.
Easy Cab: (provider)
Provides private, on-demand, at-door service Thursday-Friday-Saturday from 9 pm to 3 am. In
the downtown area. Hours are expanded for special events.
Safe Ride: (program)
Provides specialized service, primarily to SDSU students Thursday-Friday-Saturday from 10 pm
to 3 am. Service route is primarily downtown, SDSU campus, Wal-Mart, Perkins, Hy-Vee and
certain apartment complexes. Primary purpose is to keep impaired drivers off the road. BATA
provides most of the service for this program with funds provided by the City of Brookings and
the SDSU Student Association.
Volunteer Service Bank: (provider and program)
Provides specialized service on-demand primarily for those needing medical attention or to get
to medical appointments. Service is provided Monday-Friday, 8am to noon with some limited
service during the afternoons. VSB provides trips on-demand to Sioux Falls for specialized
medical appointments. VSB is not a certified Medicaid provider and does not have handicap-
accessible vehicles.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
35
ADVANCE: (provider and program)
Provides specialized transit services to developmentally-disabled persons on a 24/7 basis as a
service to group homes, supervised apartment buildings, and day services components.
ADVANCE heavily relies on BATA buses whenever possible and feasible for coordinated and
supplemental service. Most ADVANCE clients have significant mobility challenges. ADVANCE
is best equipped to address those challenges.
The Board drew heavily from the two reports referenced above from the Upper Great Plains
Transportation Institute. The reports contained an analysis as well as recommendations. The
Board sought to incorporate those findings into this document instead of duplicating the
analysis. The author of the reports, Mr. David Ripplinger attended one of the meetings and
further explained and described the contents of the documents. He led the Board through a
nominal group technique of prioritizing the types of services that should be addressed. The
priority was as follows:
1) Development of fixed route system
2) Large event planning
3) Commuter/van pool service
4) Demand response service
These issues are addressed further in the details of the report.
The Board concluded there were no glaring gaps in service. A variety of services exists to
meet the most prevailing needs of ridership. Conversely, there is some overlap and duplication
of services but very little. This appears to provide more options and a choice of service to
riders as opposed to producing a wasteful duplication of services. For example, there exists a
sub-set of riders that could find their ridership needs met by Easy Cab, Brookings Taxi, or Safe
Ride. However, there appears to be no duplication between these provides and the BATA
service since the former services are primarily weekend evenings and the latter is weekday
daytime hours. To that degree, all options for riders are covered by a multitude of providers.
Furthermore, BATA makes many service runs for local medical appointments as does the
Volunteer Service Bank. However, the VSB has a flexible fee structure relying on donations or
provides the service free of charge for riders that cannot afford the BATA fare. In addition,
VSB has a high level of flexibility to meet the needs of their clients. To a lesser degree, both
BATA and VSB provide necessary transportation to Sioux Falls for medical services. Again,
while the service may be duplicative, the fee structure provides an important economic
distinction for riders.
BATA will continue to be the lynchpin service of Brookings area mass transit. It has the most
comprehensive service levels and is in the best position to meet the mass transit needs of a
growing community. The demands for growth will need to address moderate population
growth, increased enrollment at a higher educational institution, and traffic congestion at
certain industrial locations during shift changes. BATA provides on-demand service but
operates ten stops on a fixed-route circulator system. BATA should continue to experiment
with fixed route systems to examine their financial and service viability. Continued community
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
36
growth and ridership will build demand for more fixed-route systems. Such routes only
become financially viable when ridership reaches certain thresholds. While Brookings does not
yet appear to have reached that threshold, the BATA system should be prepared and poised to
respond when it does. Experimentation with such fixed routes on trial basis can help position
BATA for identifying and settling on a successful fixed-route system. The reports suggested
three fixed routes that eventually should service the community well. Those routes will be
discussed further in the details of the report.
The presence of South Dakota State University provides unique challenges and opportunities as
an integral part of community transportation needs. SDSU’s masterplan seeks to make physical
improvements aimed at making the campus more “pedestrian-friendly by moving parking lots to
the perimeter of campus as a means of alleviating traffic congestion and improve safety. While
many students have cars, many do not and rely on other means of transportation if their
distance from home to campus is not walkable. SDSU and the Innovation Campus are
committed to providing locations for drop-off and pick-up sites for mass transportation to
facilitate the movement of students and staff to and from their destinations. BATA would seem
to be the most viable service provider.
The Board addressed three additional, ancillary issues related to transportation other than mass
transit. First, the Board spearheaded a grant application to the South Dakota Department of
Transportation for the Safe-Routes-To-Schools Program. This grant program provides funding
to municipalities desiring to improve safety and access to primary and secondary educational
facilities through public education, safety, and construction improvements. The original
application was for $164,000 and the grant was awarded in the amount of $94,000. The scope
of the project will need to be modified in light of the reduced amount if the grant is to be
accepted.
Second, the Board examined issues related to designated bicycle routes through the
community. Brookings is developed an outstanding comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian trail
system designed to safely connect neighborhoods with schools, libraries, parks, cultural
amenities, and other features. Like most communities that develop over several decades, gaps
exist in certain areas. Such gaps will most likely be corrected over time with adjacent re-
development opportunities. However, using a trail and pathway system is only part of the
solution to developing a designated bike route. Such routes require in many places a sharing of
the road between motorized vehicles and bicycles exclusive of pedestrians. What’s more
designated bike routes are designed as a mode of transportation designed to move commuters
between destinations; as opposed to bike trails and pathways which is geared more for leisure
and recreational use. With regard to designated bike routes, the Board adopted a two-phase
proposal developed by a sub-committee that would designate bike routes on campus and in the
neighborhoods adjacent to campus as Phase I. Design and community input would be executed
during the winter of 2008-09 with physical delineation and project completion during the 2009
construction season. Phase II would branch further into the community connecting Phase I
routes with existing destinations, paths, trails, and commuter streets elsewhere in the
community.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
37
Third, the Board addressed the need for additional signage to primarily direct visitors to points
of interest around the community. Such signage should have a consistent theme and design to
be easily identified and provide direction along arterial street systems. On this point, the Board
concluded a more detailed analysis be done which sets forth specific amenities of the
community highlighted in a consistent theme on signage and key locations to assist visitors in
directing them to said destinations.
Existing Service Providers
The Greater Brookings area is serviced with a variety of transit providers for both general and
specialized clientele. Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) provides the mainstay service
with a fleet of mini-buses and vans for on-demand, same-day, and limited fixed route service.
Hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Sunday. However, BATA will provide specialized transportation beginning at 5:00 a.m.
weekdays. This specialized service is mostly for employees who have disabilities to get to their
place of employment. BATA is operated as a non-profit with revenue from fares, the federal
government, local government, contracts for service, and donations.
Specialized service providers provide niche service needs which include the Safe Ride Program,
Volunteer Service Bank, ADVANCE, and Easy Cab. Brookings Taxi Cab is exclusively a private,
on-demand service operating Friday and Saturday, 8:00 pm to 3:00 am. Exhibit D fully describes
the service level of each provider.
The Board concluded there were no overriding gaps in service, or areas where there was a
significant, quantifiable need that was not being met by at least one of the providers.
Conversely, there exists some minor amount of duplication of service but such duplication
lends itself more to provide some degree of choice for the clientele without unduly hindering
any one provider that would be attributed to duplicating services. This certain amount of
duplication is advantageous to providing an alternative at a time when the primary option may
not otherwise be available. The Board found no reason to reduce or eliminate any of the
current service providers. At the same time, they found no lack of service that could not be
provided by any of the current service providers and saw no reason to initiate another
provider.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
38
Resource study recommendations & comment
The Small Urban and Rural Transit Center of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute
located at North Dakota State University in Fargo provided two studies to the Board which
yielded substantial research in the area of local transit. The reports are entitled
“Transportation Gap Analysis & Recommendations” and “Campus Transit Development
Planning – A Case Study.” The former was prepared for the City of Brookings (August, 2007)
and the latter was prepared for BATA (July, 2007). The following is the description of the
report’s recommendations from the Gap Analysis report followed by commentary from the
Board. A more complete description of the recommendation is provided in the report.
Recommendation 1: Establish a coordinated transportation board
Commentary:
This recommendation has been adopted with the approval of Resolution 90-07 of the
Brookings City Council. This report is a product of the Board that comprises this
recommendation.
Recommendation 2: Build support for coordinated, same-day service
Commentary:
The Board concluded there is no direct coordination between service providers; rather, clients
call for the service that best fits their need. In many cases, that is same-day service or at least a
notice of 24 hours. The NDSU report recommends service-sharing whereby clients would
contact a centralized dispatch instead of individual provider and they may not know which
provider would actually show up to provide the service. This arrangement is problematical
where funding is concerned.
Recommendation 3: Revise existing city transportation funding allocation and oversight policy
Commentary:
This section of the NDSU report suggests several operational and procedural modifications that
are tied to future funding and accountability. Since the NDSU report was written for
Brookings, the private taxi service has dramatically reduced its level of service and City funding
has been transferred from the private taxi service to BATA in recognition of the call load shift
primarily in the same direction. When the taxi service was in full operation, BATA had a
practice of not competing with them pursuant to a condition of receiving federal funds. The
NDSU report confirms this as a policy recommendation as a condition of funding. What’s
more, the report further suggested awarding local funding to service providers based on their
level of coordination in an effort to avoid duplication and their efficiency level to address unmet
needs. Finally, the report suggests regular activity reports as a measure of accountability for
receiving local government funds.
Brookings City and County provide funding for BATA and the City of Brookings provides
funding for Safe Ride. Several other providers received funding from the United Way and other
local sources. Only entities that provide funding to specific providers should have justification
to request activity reports as a means of insuring accountability. As such, each entity that
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
39
provides funding is encouraged to work with the recipient provider to develop their own
mutually-agreeable means of reporting requirements.
The NDSU report suggested state and federal sources of funding are often structured to be
leveraged by local matches. It is recommended local funding amounts be structured to leverage
the maximum amount of other grant sources as possible. BATA does this very well in that 50
percent of operating expenses are available from state/federal sources if the remaining 50
percent is secured through an aggregate of other local sources. Funding opportunities and
programs can vary significantly from year to year and it is further recommended this Board and
service providers alike remain informed and educated on changes to programs and funding
opportunities that can be accessed to improve the overall program.
Recommendation 4: Study expanded fixed-route service
Commentary:
Fixed-route systems are the mainstay of transit services where sufficient demand exists for
service levels beyond on-demand service. BATA currently operates one fixed (limited service)
route (attached in Exhibit E). The expansion with additional fixed routes will depend upon a
sufficient increase in ridership to justify such routes. The NDSU report “Campus Transit
Development Planning” suggests three possible additional fixed routes and analyzes the
ridership and associated costs. For a fixed route system that is heavily dependent upon student
ridership, drastic changes in usage that coincides with the school year and non-school year will
heavily influence the viability of such a route. Again, funding is the crucial determining factor in
viability. The Board recommends adopting this report recommendation and experimenting
with one (1) additional fixed route for the community on a trial basis. The hypothetical fixed
routes in the report should be used as a guide to selecting the specific route and need not be
exactly the route analyzed in the report. BATA should be the provider to service this route
and supplemental funding will need to be provided for this pilot project.
Recommendation 5: Consider role of transportation in Large Event planning
Commentary:
Providing specialized shuttle transportation for large events is currently being done and the
Board adopted this recommendation as a priority that should be continued. BATA is in the
best position to provide this service with their fleet of buses that can be made available from
their regular service for specialized shuttle services for events. Promoters and organizers of
such large events such as SDSU, the Chamber of Commerce/Visitors Bureau, Swiftel Center
and other organizations charged with organizing and promoting special events are aware BATA
is available to provide such service. What’s more, because of the large number of users on a
rotating origin-destination fixed route and a continuous shuttle schedule for a lump sum price
by the event planner, the service is relatively profitable for BATA. This is already a mainstay
service and will be continued.
Recommendation 6: Consider vanpool services
Commentary:
Coordinated vanpool services for employees as a home-to-work transportation system appears
to be non-existent in Brookings, at least there was not any known to the Board. However, it
may be possible that a group of employees have, on their own initiative, organized a van or car
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
40
pool system where the origin, destination, and schedule make such an option feasible. This
option addresses the transit issue of home-to-work commuters on a fairly regular work
schedule which puts more commuters in fewer vehicles. This alleviates traffic congestion on
streets and saves parking lot space at employers. In many cases, large employers have provided
incentives for their employees who live close to each other and work similar or identical shifts,
to car/vanpool instead of each employee driving their own vehicle. To minimize the
car/vanpool stops to pick up/drop-off employees, the use of a strategically-located park-and-
ride lot as a central location assists with the efficiencies of this mode of transportation. The
Board adopted this recommendation as a priority and recognized it would need to be first
addressed by holding informational assessment meetings with major employers such as
Daktronics, Larson Manufacturing, 3M, and others to assess the needs of their employees.
Longer-distance can/vanpool arrangements become more feasible for employees who work in
Brookings but live in outlying communities such as Aurora, Volga, Arlington, Bruce, or White.
Recommendation 7: Incorporate community transportation into emergency planning
Commentary:
To date, provisions for the mass transportation, evacuation, or movement of persons in the
face of an emergency or natural disaster, is not adequately integrated into local emergency
planning. Local public safety officials have disaster management plans that are constantly being
updated. For those emergency situations that occur where persons are congregated needing
to be quickly evacuated, and where individual and separate mobility is not feasible, efficient, or
fast enough, the fleet of BATA buses and school buses will need to be mobilized. These buses
need to arrive at the scene, load persons, and evacuate them quickly to safety. It is
recommended local emergency planners incorporate the provision of mass evacuation during
emergencies using school district and BATA buses.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
41
Board priority recommendations
Using the resource studies as background information, the Board further developed four
priorities, listed below in order of importance, as key issues to implement in the future. Board
members used the Nominal Group Technique to prioritize these items. They are:
Priority 1: Fixed route service delivery (39 votes)
The resource reports suggested three possible fixed routes around Brookings. Currently, one
“service” route exists provided by BATA. While it technically does not meet the criteria of a
fixed route, it operates similar to a fixed route. This priority would be to develop a pilot
project on a trial basis of adding one additional fixed route. This route would strategically
identify key points of bus stop locations as identified by the demand service and assemble them
into a route that coordinates with the existing fixed route. The existing route may need to be
adjusted to complement the efficiencies of two routes. It is further suggested one of the two
routes (existing or proposed) have the SDSU student union as a centralized bus stop serving
the entire campus and not have several stops at various locations that would serve to dilute
ridership. Obviously, this route may need to be altered during the summer months when there
would be less campus ridership activity. BATA is best equipped to service fixed route service.
When a prototype route is selected, BATA should develop a proposed budget. BATA and the
Board should work to secure funding for this pilot project. Supplemental marketing and
advertising costs will be needed as a measure of success for this pilot fixed route.
SDSU ridership is crucial to the success of a fixed-route system. The high number of riders
provided by this institution coupled with their need for transit services bodes well increasing
the demand for a fixed route. Conversely, the drop in students during the summer months
compromises this viability. As such, a “peak-season” fixed route from September through May
with fixed route service being suspended during June-August may be an option to consider.
Financial considerations are the determinant factor in ascertaining the viability of a fixed route
system. BATA’s operational costs are $50 per hour so revenue from aggregate sources needs
to meet this level of expense. In addition, current federal funding criteria for fixed route
service providers require the service area to be 50,000 persons. The greater-Brookings service
territory is much smaller than this. Unless there are changes in federal law, federal funding will
not be available for fixed route service leaving it funding exclusively by local revenue sources.
Priority 2: Large community event shuttle services (21 votes)
BATA is already providing this service. Event organizers and promoters know BATA is
available on a contract basis to provide shuttle service for special events around the
community. Large event planning generally comprises a continuous shuttle run between large
parking lots and an event destination which does not have any, or has insufficient parking within
walking distance to the event. The Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and SDSU are the
primary event organizers for most large events that would need such service. The only
limitation would be events that are so large they demand more buses than BATA can spare
from the regular service; or buses larger than BATA’s fleet can provide. In the case of the
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
42
latter, larger capacity buses, such as school buses, may be an option. Most often, the large
event needs comprise regular shuttle service between the event and parking.
Priority 3: Commuter van pool services (19 votes)
Opportunities should be identified with major employers to coordinate park-and-ride
commuter and vanpool services for employees. Many large employers have many employees
working the same shifts that could organize vehicle pools dividing the community by
neighborhood allowing employees to utilize parking lots to leave their vehicle and transfer to a
car/vanpool vehicle to get to work. Church parking lots are ideally suited for park-and-ride lots
as they are less busy during the work week and are located throughout many neighborhoods
lessening drive time. Retail centers will likely make a portion of their parking lots available for
park-and-ride lots provided they do not occupy premium parking during the day. There is
obvious benefit to retailers when commuters conduct retail business before or after work
because their vehicle is at the lot. Car pool could be organized by employees. Van pools could
be provided by employers. The advantage to employers is lessening their requirement for
worksite parking lots and traffic congestion between shifts.
Priority 4: Demand response services (16 votes)
The demand for same-day transportation continues to increase and is offered by BATA for an
increased cost for this higher level of service. A cost differential should likely continue between
various service levels with more expensive services commanding a higher price. Since
Brookings tax cab service has reduced operations, the demand for same-day transportation has
increased. More than the other services, this type of service is based purely on economics and
needs to be profitable with revenues coming exclusively from ridership or the costs would be
partially subsidized to make the service more affordable. BATA and Brookings taxi cab can help
provide information about fee structures that are needed to be addressed with a subsidy if the
service is to be provided.
The component of Emergency Planning only received two (2) votes so it was dropped from
further consideration.
BATA priority; enhance existing service before expanding service
Since BATA is the most comprehensive service provider in the area, they are positioned to
best able to consider expansion of services such as these four priority areas. However, more
resources will be necessary to finance a higher level of service increasing subsidized service.
Currently, BATA’s operating expenses are averaged at $50 per hour. BATA has adopted a
strategic plan that supports enhancing existing services before expanding services. The
enhancement of such services is as follows:
a) Expand morning hours by adding 4:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.
b) Add one driver and one dispatcher between 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
c) Expand to have one bus running nighttime hours for 24 hour coverage.
Special considerations for destination locations
Current plans for renovation and expansion of the Brookings Health System hospital provide a
unique opportunity to incorporate a transit drop-off center specifically designed to receive
patients arriving/departing on buses. Likewise, other locations such as clinics or others
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
43
experiencing a significant number of customers/clients by transit providers should consider
physical modifications such as reserved parking, ingress/egress lanes, weather-sheltered
canopies or drive-thrus.
Consistent with the SDSU masterplan to improve traffic, parking, and pedestrian mobility
around campus, locations for drop-off and pick-up sites for transit services will be provided.
The SDSU Innovation Campus, along with other employment clusters such as Daktronics, 3M,
and Larson Manufacturing, will need to be designated as destination locations for commuter use
either on a carpooling or fixed route program. For destinations that generate sufficient
ridership, a long-range goal should be to consider bus depots at such locations.
Demand response transit to Sioux Falls
BATA and Volunteer Service Bank (VSB) provide many demand response trips from Brookings
to Sioux Falls for two primary reasons. BATA’s demand is for medical appointments for
specialty medical services and trips to the Sioux Falls Airport. VSB provides many trips per
week to Sioux Falls almost exclusively for medical appointments. For BATA’s airport trips,
most are students without vehicles or who do not want to leave vehicles at the airport parking
needing trips home.
Essential Air Service
Brookings Municipal Airport was previously served with federally-subsidized air passenger
service twice daily to a limited number of regional destinations. Federal funding cuts in 2007
eliminated this service. However, funding was re-established in 2008 until the budget
expiration of September 30, 2009. The task of negotiating with a private carrier fell to the
South Dakota Department of Transportation, and the likelihood of contracting with a
commuter airline for such a short amount of time is problematic. Presently, even though
funding is in place, no carrier service exists. Essential Air Service was not an issue investigated
at length by the Transportation Board but it is a minor component of the overall transportation
picture for the community.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
44
Way-finding signage
The Board concluded the City of Brookings lacks adequate directional signage for motorists
visiting the community who are looking for specific points of interest. While some signage
exists along Interstate 29 and Highway 14 (6th Street) to direct visitors to certain locations, the
signage is not comprehensive and lacks a consistent and recognizable design, logo, or color
scheme.
The Board recommends the development of a system to install signage of specific attractions,
many of which are suggested below, to have a consistent “theme” so they are recognized as
“way-finding” signage. The destinations selected would be specifically those that are designed
to attract and assist visitors to the community by helping them navigate via directional arrows
from the interstate and Highway 14. Destinations would be civic, cultural, recreational, and
educational in nature. Signage that advertises businesses would be prohibited from this project.
The community will need to work closely with Department of Transportation officials for
location and specifications of such signage. SDDOT has strict regulations regarding design and
placement of such signage. Signage would have to be strategically placed to avoid “sign
pollution” and reader confusion and not overwhelm motorists
The following is a list of attractions that could be incorporated into a way-finding sign program.
The list is not exhaustive.
Brookings Municipal Airport Swiftel Center
Hillcrest Park & Aquatic Center Brookings Municipal Library
Brookings High School Mickelson Middle School
Camelot Intermediate School Pioneer Park
Fishback Soccer Complex SDSU- Inn. Campus Research Park
Southbrook Softball Complex SDSU – main entrance
Historic Downtown SDSU – McCrory Gardens
Chamber of Commerce/Visitor info SDSU - Art Museum
Edgebrook Golf Course SDSU – Coughlin Alumni Stadium
SD Children’s Museum SDSU – Performing Art Center
Larson Ice Arena SDSU – Frost Arena
Identifying specific locations and signage design are beyond the scope of this report. However,
it is recommended that a comprehensive way-finding signage program and its associated costs,
be developed and implemented.
Downtown Brookings, Inc. (DBI) has completed a plan that has identified many of these subject
locations with host signage locations around the community. It is recommended that
implementation of this initiative use the previous plan completed by DBI as a tool to coordinate
and complement a comprehensive way-finding signage program.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
45
Rural transportation issues
A delegation of individuals from Brookings County representing rural transportation and transit
issues attended the Easter Seals Mobility Planning Institute in Washington, DC April 20-24,
2008. The purpose of this Institute was to identify specific mobility issues facing rural areas;
then focus on a specific strategic plan to affect positive change on one issue.
The group identified three specific issues that needed to be addressed:
1) Increased hours of transportation service to include early morning and late evening.
2) Job access commuting for local industry, retail, and service employment from
outlying communities.
3) Availability of mobility/transportation options within the smaller communities to
meet the needs within their communities, as well as coordinating and commuting to
the larger communities for medical, social, transportation connections, and other
needs.
The group decided to focus on Item (3) as it was their consensus that transportation needs of
those who have no other option was of paramount importance. The sparse population in rural
areas and smaller communities cause a lack of sufficient critical mass to oftentimes justify the
operational feasibility of transit options. Yet, BATA continues to experience a slow but steady
increase is demand responses calls from rural areas. Although the amount of demand may be
less, a demand still exists. The group developed the following action plan as supplemental
recommendations:
1) Meet with Regional Mayors Association to address the issue and increase awareness.
2) Develop and deploy a survey within the communities of Volga, Bruce, White,
Aurora, Bushnell, Elkton, Estelline, Arlington, and Sinai requesting information and
interest in transit needs.
3) Identify specific funding sources for rural transit needs; state and federal grants and
appropriations, local matching funds, and non-governmental grant options.
4) Identify options for vehicles to address the needs; wheelchair accessible, vehicles
available through state grants, volunteer drivers, surplus law enforcement vehicles.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
46
Safe-Routes-To-Schools (SRTS) path/trail system
During the Board’s analysis, the community submitted a grant application to the South Dakota
Department of Transportation for the Safe-Routes-To-School program (SRTS). This program
provides funding to local units of government for the purpose of improving pedestrian systems
that connect neighborhoods to schools and improve related community safety.
The application was for $164, 480 in total costs; $34,100 for non-infrastructure and $130,380
for construction. The application identified routes for construction of new pathways and
improvements to existing pathways that improve safety and make the necessary origin and
destination connections required by the program. The grant was awarded in the amount of
$94,000. The reason for the reduction from the amount requested was a desire on the part of
the program to fund more projects even if they could not afford to fund all of them in their
entirety. Second, there were components of the application the program specifically did not
want to finance with the grant. The recipient can still include those amounts in the project with
other funding as long as SRTS grant funding is not used. For specific information about the
program, refer to the application.
It is recommended a sub-committee of those who worked on the original application analyze
the response from the funding agency and revise the original program to meet the needs of the
granting agency so the grant funds can still be accepted and the program can proceed even if it
needs to be revised.
The grant application period for the second round of SRTS funding will occur during the winter
of 2009. The City of Brookings should apply for more SRTS funding in an effort to expand the
work of the first grant award.
Bicycle pathway designation
A subcommittee of the Transportation Board along with assistance from the SDSU Student
Association developed a two-phase plan for bicycle designation routes along existing streets.
Phase I includes on-campus routes and limited routes in the immediate neighborhoods
bordering the campus. Phase II expands the designation system to include cross-community
connections to major public amenities and facilities as well as the City of Brookings trail and
pathway system.
Unlike traditional bicycle routes typically part of an existing park system which are usually
viewed as recreational and leisure in purpose, the designation of bicycle lanes on existing street
systems are viewed as an alternative form of transportation to motor vehicles. For this reason,
they typically follow major transportation corridors.
Modifications include painting/striping of lane designations on existing streets and signage.
Designations of bike lanes for both phases are designated Exhibit F.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
47
Projected costs are as follows, excluding signage which is not yet determined:
Phase I: City streets adjacent to campus $38,016
On-campus streets $42,566
On-campus bicycle racks $30,000
TOTAL SDSU PAYMENT $110,572
City streets near campus $67,584
Signage TBD
TOTAL CITY PAYMENT $67,584
Phase II: City cross-community streets $208,616
Signage TBD
TOTAL CITY PAYMENT $208,616
TOTAL PROJECT COST, BOTH PHASES $386,272 plus signage
The Brookings City Council has endorsed the plan conceptually and directed staff to pursue
planning and engineering review of the proposal from October, 2008 to February, 2009 with
construction during the early part of the 2009 construction season. Phase I is to be complete
by July 1, 2009. Phase II is not yet scheduled. The Transportation Board endorsed the project
at their October 21 meeting.
During the project review period, city staff will analyze the proposed plan to examine vehicle
and bicycle capacity, intersection geometrics, signage, parking, lane designations, destination
connections, and the possibility of creating one-way streets. The City’s Traffic Safety
Committee will also review the proposal. Since parking restrictions may need to be modified in
certain areas, public hearings will likewise need to be held.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
48
Financial considerations
Most service providers operate on a combination of funding sources to meet capital and
operational needs. Such sources include user fees, governmental appropriations, and donations
from individuals and organizations such as the United Way and the SDSU Student Activity fund.
Specialized and mass transit services will continue to need funding beyond user fees as the
economics of providing the service will not make it self-funding. Similarly, private
transportation, in reality, also requires subsidization in the form of streets, roads, and bridges
through taxes. Public funding for mass transit has, and likely will remain in place, albeit in
varying degrees, because mass transit is usually considered an essential service for a community
and a key indicator of a community’s quality of life.
As the largest local mass transit provider, BATA receives 50 percent of it’s funding from the
federal government with a requirement that the remaining 50 percent be matched locally.
BATA meets that requirement with user fees (fares), donations, and contributions from the
City of Brookings and Brookings County. In 2009, funding from the City of Brookings and the
County of Brookings is budgeted at $60,000 and $32,000 respectively. The City of Brookings
has also budgeted $5,000 for the SDSU Safe Ride program. SDSU has budgeted $10,000 for
the Safe Ride program.
Funding will continue to be a challenge for operations with growing demand for more and
expanded services in the face of downward pressure on fares in order to maintain affordability
for users. It is estimated that BATA requires $50 per hour in operational expenses. The ability
to expand services will only widen the gap between revenue and expenses as increased
subsidization will be required. Other service providers relying on donations or other
speculative sources of revenue will face similar budget challenges, especially in light of a weak
economy and increased fuel prices.
With regard to capital, BATA’s capital requirements are met with the same 80 percent federal,
20 percent local match for replacement of buses, dispatching/radio equipment, and buildings and
facilities. BATA buses are on a ten-year depreciation schedule.
The Safe-Routes-To-Schools grant program is a welcome and much-needed boost in federal-to-
state funding that did not require a local match. Still, the first-year award was substantially less
than the grant request and the program remains in place for subsequent year’s funding. The
Way-Finding signage issue is not budgeted and will need to be prioritized in the City’s five-year
capital improvement program for long-range funding.
The Bike Lane designation phases are not funded to their full level prescribed in the plan. The
SDSU portion is funded but the City portion is only funded to a level of $10,000 for 2009.
Additional city sources and donations will need to augment this budget if the bike lane
construction schedule is to be met.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
49
Conclusion
The future of local transportation and transit services for the Greater Brookings area contains
both opportunities and challenges. Assisted by two reports from North Dakota State
University, the area is well-positioned to seize these opportunities and overcome these
challenges. One report addressed potential fixed routes projected for the future if demand
warrants, and the second report focused more exclusively on transit issues faced by SDSU, and
the university impact on the larger picture.
These reports made a series of recommendations; some of which were rejected by the
Transportation Board while others were adopted. The Board determined no significant
duplications existed. Rather, any minor duplication in service levels is desirable, and perhaps
needed, to provide options for riders with special needs.
In addition, the Transportation Board addressed other issues related to improving the trail and
pathway system connecting schools and neighborhoods through the successful Safe-Routes-to-
Schools grant application. Way-finding signage was suggested as a future goal to improve
mobility through the community, primarily for visitors. The bike lane designation is also
recommended as an alternative transportation mode utilizing existing surface street systems.
Funding for capital and operating needs will continue to be the primary challenge as capital and
operating expenses for transportation and transit services competes for funding from a growing
and expansive list of other public policy providers.
Finally, the Transportation Board considers this report as a road map for decision-making and
implementation of the ideas and suggestions contained therein. The Board plans to revise and
update this report every two years to insure it’s viability for helping to guide the decision-
making process of these crucial services.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
50
RESOLUTION NO. 90-07
A RESOLUTION CREATING THE BROOKINGS TRANSPORTATION BOARD
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKINGS
WHEREAS, in order to identify opportunities for improved transportation efficiency
as measured by increased levels of service or decreased cost, especially through coordination
among transportation providers in Brookings, and further to provide oversight and evaluation
of the success of coordinated transportation efforts, and to provide advice and information to
other organizations on a regular or as needed-basis, the City of Brookings hereby creates a
Brookings Transportation Board, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as
follows:
Brookings Transportation Board
Section 1. Creation/Name. There is hereby created a transportation board for the
City of Brookings. The transportation board will be referred to as the Brookings
Transportation Board.
Section 2. Purpose/Mandate. The purpose of the Brookings Transportation Board
is to identify opportunities for improved efficiency as measured by increased levels of service or
decreased cost, especially through coordination among transportation providers in Brookings.
The Brookings Transportation Board shall provide oversight and evaluation of the success of
coordinated transportation efforts as well as provide advice and information to other
organizations on a regular or as needed-basis.
Section 3. Manner of appointment, composition, terms.
(a) Members of the Brookings Transportation Board shall be appointed by the Mayor,
with the advice and consent of the City Council, for three-year terms that
commence in January. Members may be appointed for additional terms not
exceeding three years each. The initial terms of office shall be staggered in 1, 2 and
3 year increments.
(b) The Brookings Transportation Board shall consist of thirteen (13) members, who
shall be appointed with due regard to representation from the following areas:
1. City of Brookings
2. County of Brookings
3. Brookings Health Systems
4. Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities
5. Brookings Public School System
6. East Central Mental Health
7. Downtown Brookings Inc.
8. South Dakota State University Administration
9. South Dakota State University Student Association
10. South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
51
11. ADVANCE
12. Senior Activity Center
13. Citizen-At-Large
(c) Ex-officio, non-voting members shall be appointed to serve on the Brookings
Transportation Board from the following areas: City (City Engineer, ADA
Coordinator), all transportation service providers.
Section 4. Qualifications of members. The members of the Brookings
Transportation Board shall not hold any elective office in city government.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy in the membership of the Brookings
Transportation Board shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as provided for
appointment.
Section 6. Meetings; chairman. The Brookings Transportation Board shall regularly
hold meetings at such times and places as it shall determine. It shall select a chair from its
members, and such other officers as it deems appropriate, to serve for a term of one year.
Section 7. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Brookings Transportation
Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of its business.
Section 8. Duties; powers. The Brookings Transportation Board shall have the
following powers and duties:
(a) Advise the City Council, City Manager and staff concerning transportation matters
with the city of Brookings and surrounding area.
(b) Advise the City Council, City Manager and staff concerning the city’s public
transportation budgetary needs and uses; review policies and operations of public
transit providers who receive public funds; and suggest changes to policies and
operations of public transit providers to reflect needs of the community.
(c) Facilitate coordination of public transit providers.
Passed and approved on the 11th day of December, 2007.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST:
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
52
TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEMBERS
Teresa McKnight
CEO/Executive Director of SDSU Innovation Campus/Growth Partnership
Representing Citizen-at-large
Art Conners
City of Brookings – Park & Recreation Department
Representing Senior Activity Center
Terrell Spence
Director of Operations ADVANCE
Representing ADVANCE
Jerry Raabe
State of SD, Division of Rehabilitation
Representing SD Dept. of Vocational Rehabilitation
Tyler Luckhurst
SDSU State and Local Government Chair
Representing SDSU Student Association
Dean Kattelmann
SDSU, Asst. VP Facilities Manager
Representing SDSU Administration
Robb Rasmussen
Sioux River Bicycles & Fitness
Representing Downtown Brookings, Inc.
Michael Forgy
Clinical Director of East Central Mental Health
Representing East Central Mental Health
Dr. Roger DeGroot
Supt. Brookings School District
Representing Brookings School System
Nancy Hartenhoff-Crooks
SDSU Disabilities Coordinator
Representing Disability Committee
Rob Jones
Business Owner of Slumberland
Representing Brookings Health System
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
53
Dennis Falken
Retired
Representing Brookings County
Jeffrey Weldon
City Manager
Representing the City of Brookings
Ex-Officio members (non-voting)
Shari Thornes
City Clerk / City ADA Coordinator
Jackie Lanning
City Engineer
SERVICE PROVIDERS
Brooks Behrend
Brookings Taxi
Don Boone
Volunteer Service Bank
Charlene Carothers
Easy Cab
Brenda Schweitzer
Brookings Area Transit Authority
Ellie Trautman
Safe Ride
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
54
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.
5. Formation of a Complete Count Committee.
On February 26, 2008, Council Member Tim Reed presented the following proposal
regarding the creation of a Complete Count Committee (CCC) for Council consideration.
A summary of the Council discussion from that meeting is enclosed in the packet.
• US Census Accuracy: Appropriation of Federal Funds, Accurate local statistical data
(Retail Attraction, Average Income), Data for the community (Housing needs), and How
big is Brookings & Brookings County.
• What is a Complete Count Committee (CCC): A major vehicle for planning and
implementing local, targeted efforts that will uniquely address the characteristics of our
community.
• Why form a CCC?: To make everyone in the community aware of the 2010 Census;
to motivate the community to participate by filling out the census form; and to utilize
local knowledge, expertise, and awareness campaign targeted to the community.
• What are the goals of a CCC?: Develop a community-specific 2010 Census awareness
campaign; provide leadership in the promotion of 2010 Census; and commit to ensuring
that every resident in our community is counted.
• Specific Activities of CCC’s: Develop local theme for census participation; create and
distribute community-specific promotional materials; work with local media to promote
census; and identify hard to enumerate areas and create a targeted campaign for those
areas.
• Timeline: Spring/Summer 2008 – Form CCC, Fall 2008 – Start creating plan, Summer
2009 – propose budget to Governments (City & County), Fall 2009 – Finalize plan,
January 2010 – Monthly meetings, April 2010 – Implement plan for Census Day and
Census Week.
• CCC Membership: Council Member(s), City Manager / City Clerk, Community
Members, Media, SDSU Student Leadership, County Commissioners.
In response, City Staff has prepared for Council consideration a draft resolution to establish
a Brookings Complete Count Committee. Staff recommends adoption of a resolution in
January or February in order to get members appointed and the committee working on
campaign planning. From January to December 2009 Census officials recommend CCC
members obtain training, finalize the plan, and conduct census-generating activities with at
least one activity per month.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
55
Summary of 2/28/08 Council Discussion:
Britzman suggested a resolution to form this ad hoc committee.
Whaley suggested the Council recruit elderly/retired citizens for this committee.
Dan Hanson, Planning & Zoning Administrator, said he has been the city’s chief liaison with the Census Bureau for 15
years. The City created a Complete Count Committee in 2000 with public education as their top priority. Accurate
count of “group quarters” housing was stressed. Group quarters consist of unrelated adults, such as dormitories. Their
biggest issue was to educate students to consider themselves as residents rather than transients.
Reed asked if the city was in good shape regarding accurate addressing. Hanson said there is a problem with the
addresses in that the post office can reassign address numbers and Post Office’s new software doesn’t recognize ½ and
¾ street addresses (basement apartments, etc.). Getting the Postmaster involved in the Committee would be a good
idea.
Brunner asked what efforts were made in the 2000 process to list the people in the resident halls. Hanson said their
first attempt wasn’t the best and a better effort could be made in this process.
Weldon said the struggle is how to count legal addresses. He asked if there are Federal guidelines on how to consider
the students.
No action was taken at this meeting. The Council will consider action to approve a resolution creating a Complete
Count Committee at a future meeting.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
56
Resolution No. ____ -2009
A Resolution Establishing the Committee Count Committee for the 2010 Census
for the City of Brookings, South Dakota
Whereas, the United States will conduct a complete census of its population during the
2010 Census; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has a vested interest in achieving a complete and accurate
count of its population during the 2010 Census; and
Whereas, specific interests include increased Federal funds appropriations, accurate local
statistical data for retail attraction, and accurate data for community housing needs; and
Whereas, some segments of the population are at risk for undercounting in the census; and
Whereas, the input and support of individuals and organizations actively engaged with
groups at risk for undercounting in the City of Brookings is necessary to achieve a complete
count; and
Whereas, a Complete Count Committee would bring together individuals from throughout
the city committed to achieving a complete census count.
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that the City Council of the Brookings, South Dakota,
hereby establishes the Brookings Complete Count Committee to plan and implement
strategies for achieving a complete count of Brookings city residents in the year 2010
United States Census, including those residents at-risk for undercounting.
Purpose Statement/Goals:
1) Develop a community-specific 2010 Census awareness campaign.
2) Provide leadership in the promotion of the 2010 Census.
3) Commit to ensuring that every resident in our community is counted.
Membership: Due regard given to the following areas of representation:
Local Government: Brookings City Council & Brookings County Commission, City
and County Planning Departments
State Government: Social Services, Vocational Rehabilitation
Higher Learning: South Dakota State University: Administration, Student Senate,
Diversity Office
Schools: Brookings School System
Senior Citizens
Business/Industry
Faith-Based Groups: Ministerial Association, Habitat for Humanity
Tribal Government
Media
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
57
Residency: Each member of the Complete Count Committee shall be a resident of the
City of Brookings.
Meetings: The Brookings Complete Count Committee will meet at least monthly from
the committee inspection through May 2010 with the staff support of the City Manager’s
Office and Community Development Director.
The Brookings Complete Count Committee will coordinate its activities with
representatives from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Denver Regional Office.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
58
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.
6. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Meeting Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 01-09, a Resolution Creating And Establishing A Committee For
The Purpose Of Development And Implementation Of Coordinated Traffic Safety Programs
Within The City Of Brookings to be known and Designated as the City of Brookings Traffic
Safety Committee.
D. Action to renew a joint City / School Facility Agreement.
E. Action on Resolution No. 02-09, a resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for
Brookings Regional Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements Project AIP #3-46-0005-
019-2006 with Brookings Electric Construction, Inc.
F. Action on Resolution No. 03-09, a resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO#1) for
2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Ave. and Camelot Drive Street Assessment Project
with Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling
on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the west 338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section
34-T110N-R50W, except the south 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural a District to a Residence R-
1A District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 46-08: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area
pertaining to an Agricultural Research Facility as a permitted use in the Agricultural A District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 47-08: An ordinance for an application for a conditional use to establish a beauty
shop (hair salon) on Lot 9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also known as 1108 Telluride Circle.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business:
11. TABLED: Resolution No. 115-08, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person
(ADVANCE).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action on amendment, request public comment, roll call
Action on main motion as amended, request public comment, roll call
12. Action on City of Brookings “Guidelines for the use of Tax Increment Finance.”
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
13. Potential projects for Federal Economic Stimulus Package.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
14. Preview of 2009 Capital Construction Items.
Informational
15. Adjourn.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
59
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.
7. Council Invites & Obligations
January 13th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
January 19th
Holiday / Dr. Martin Luther King Day
City Hall Closed
January 21st
Brookings Day in Legislature
All Day
Pierre
January 27th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
January 30th
Earliest Date to Circulate & File
Petitions
February 3rd
SDML / Gov’t Day Dinner
Evening
Pierre
February 4th
SDML Gov’t Day in Legislature
All Day
Pierre
February 10th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
February 16th
Holiday / President’s Day
City Hall Closed
February 19th
Annual Goal Setting Retreat
All Day
Brookings
February 24th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
February 27th
Deadline to file petitions
5 pm
March 16-20
Board of Equalization Hearings
April 14th
Election
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
60
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.
8. City Council member introduction of topics for future
discussion*.
*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.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
61
6:00 p.m. Council Meeting
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Meeting Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 01-09, a Resolution Creating And Establishing A Committee
For The Purpose Of Development And Implementation Of Coordinated Traffic Safety
Programs Within The City Of Brookings to be known and Designated as the City of
Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
D. Action to renew a joint City / School Facility Agreement.
E. Action on Resolution No. 02-09, a resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO#1 Final)
for Brookings Regional Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements Project AIP #3-
46-0005-019-2006 with Brookings Electric Construction, Inc.
F. Action on Resolution No. 03-09, a resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO#1) for
2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Ave. and Camelot Drive Street Assessment
Project with Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family
dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the west 338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of
Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the south 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural a District to a
Residence R-1A District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 46-08: An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction
Area pertaining to an Agricultural Research Facility as a permitted use in the Agricultural A
District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 47-08: An ordinance for an application for a conditional use to establish a
beauty shop (hair salon) on Lot 9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also known as 1108 Telluride
Circle.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business:
11. TABLED: Resolution No. 115-08, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private
Person (ADVANCE).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call, Action on amendment, request public comment, roll call
Action on main motion as amended, request public comment, roll call
12. Action on City of Brookings “Guidelines for the use of Tax Increment Finance.”
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
13. Potential projects for Federal Economic Stimulus Package.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
14. Preview of 2009 Capital Construction Items. Informational
15. Adjourn.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
62
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Meeting Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 01-09, a Resolution Creating And
Establishing A Committee For The Purpose Of
Development And Implementation Of Coordinated Traffic
Safety Programs Within The City Of Brookings to be known
and Designated as the City of Brookings Traffic Safety
Committee.
D. Action to renew a joint City / School Facility Agreement.
E. Action on Resolution No. 02-09, a resolution authorizing
Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for Brookings Regional
Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements Project AIP
#3-46-0005-019-2006 with Brookings Electric Construction,
Inc.
F. Action on Resolution No. 03-09, a resolution authorizing
Change Order (CCO#1) for 2008-02STA 15th Street South,
Christine Ave. and Camelot Drive Street Assessment
Project with Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
63
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Action to approve the City Council Meeting Minutes.
Minutes from the City Council’s October 28th, November 18th, December 9th and
December 16th meetings are enclosed for Council review and approval.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
64
Brookings City Council
October 28, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley (left at 6:00 pm), Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner (arrived at 5:09 pm), Tim Reed, Mike
McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek (arrived at 5:14 pm). City Manager Jeff Weldon, City
Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Economic Development land discussion. Jeff Weldon, City Manager, said the purpose of
this agenda item is to have a philosophical discussion to revisit the policies on the city’s
acquisition and sale of land for economic development purposes to private entities.
Al Heuton, Brookings Economic Development Director, reviewed the BEDC’s processes
related to development and land transactions. Heuton said the State of South Dakota allows
economic development organizations to receive public property through land transactions for
economic development purposes.
Heuton reviewed the following policy process in detail:
Requests to purchase city owned property in Brookings industrial and commercial parks are processed
through Brookings Economic Development Corporation (BEDC). The City must either transfer land
through BEDC or conduct a sealed bid process open and advertised to the general public. The request
process generally follows the steps described below:
1. Business approaches BEDC with interest in acquiring land.
2. BEDC will assist the industry/business with collection of information required to prepare a land
request proposal and to complete an incentive scorecard, if a land incentive is requested.
o The request proposal outlines the case for sale of land to the business.
o The scorecard provides information that allows BEDC to complete a benefit/cost
analysis of the projects economic impact on the community.
o The benefit/cost analysis and the request proposal assist the city council in determining
the value of land incentive, if any, that may be provided.
3. The completed land request proposal is reviewed with the business to ensure no proprietary
information is presented in a public forum. Company names and/or details that might allow
the company to be recognized will be removed from the presentation to the city council upon
request of the business.
4. When the request proposal is completed BEDC will contact the city clerk and city manager to
place the request on the next available city council agenda.
5. The land request is a request from BEDC, not the business. Therefore, BEDC will present the
request to the city council. The business is welcome to participate in the request presentation
if desired.
6. Upon approval of the request, or amended request, the city attorney will prepare the necessary
land closing and transfer documents and conduct the sale. BEDC will prepare a Memorandum
of Understanding between BEDC and the business regarding details of the sale. (BEDC
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
65
generally requires the business to cover applicable closing costs. If desired by the business, the
business may purchase title insurance at the businesses expense.
7. After approval of the land transfer resolution from the City to BEDC there is a 20-day
referendum waiting period that must be observed before the land closing can occur.
Land Request – General Outline
Following is a general narrative outline BEDC will use to make the land request to the City Council.
1. Project Request: Brief summary of the request: location and number of acres of land, purpose
of the project and requested land price.
2. Project History: Summary of company history in the community – facility type, headquarters
location, product/service type, years in community, current employment, wage summary,
occupations, employee place of residence, etc.
3. Proposed Project: General description of business/industry growth projection, number of jobs to
be created/retained, timetable, capital investment, etc.
4. Economic Impact: A chart similar to the following is used to provide a general benefit/cost
analysis. Information requested to complete the incentive scorecard is used to determine the
economic impact.
5. Incentive scorecard
Information needed to complete the scorecard includes:
• Total number of full-time employee equivalents (FTE’s) and total payroll.
• Number of Non-management FTE’s and average wage.
• Number of Management FTE’s and average wage.
• Description of the benefit package provide – health care, retirement, other.
• Value of new construction.
• Value of taxable equipment to be purchased.
• Use of SDSU students or graduates in the labor force.
• Supply or value-added relationships with other community business or industry.
It would also be helpful to have some information depicting the company’s involvement in the
community.
As previously mentioned, BEDC staff are available to assist the business with preparation of this
information and will prepare the narrative for presentation to the city council.”
Heuton further noted that every project the BEDC has done has created a positive economic
development impact which was worth much more than the initial land cost. He said this leads
back to the question, “is this a real estate deal or economic development transaction?”
Another part of the transaction is a series of ‘claw backs’. That involves the following three
things:
1) If the applicant doesn’t build on property within 3 years, BEDC has the right to buy back
at sale price.
2) If the applicant develops on the property but don’t develop all the land, the BEDC has
the option to buy the remaining acres at the sale price or ask the applicant to repay an
additional amount which would be the difference in the subsidized value of the land.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
66
3) If the applicant develops the business, occupies the building, and then sells that business,
go out of business or move within a five year period of time, they’d owe all difference in
valuation back and graduated down to zero.
Heuton said this process was implemented within the last four years. He noted that the BEDC
takes a subordinate position with banks on the loan and the BEDC doesn’t make any money.
The business owner covers the closing costs.
Council Discussion
Munsterman referred to Resolution No. 79-04, passed in 2004, which states that “…the
estimated market value of said property be determined from time to time to aid in considering
the sale price thereof…”. He asked if the City has been more of a real estate valuation driven
philosophy or has it been on both sides of the fence?
Heuton said he didn’t know that Resolution existed until a few months ago. Everything he had
been told was that the City wanted $1.00/square foot but that was negotiable. Those are the
parameters he’s been operating under. Every deal the BEDC has brought to the City is a
negotiation process.
Munsterman agreed that ultimately it’s been this Council that made the decision on how much
to sell land for and has given that direction. He said here in lies the philosophical discussion of
economic development verses real estate transaction.
Heuton said the real estate discussion is pretty simple. If the Council just wants to consider it
real estate, then every piece of property would need to be appraised because they’re all
different, citing examples in various industrial additions. Parcels also differ due to varying stages
of development and improvements. A dollar value per acre across the board wouldn’t work in
a straight real estate philosophy.
He said the other issue on real estate is that it’s not strictly real estate based on value. We
operate in a competitive environment. There are nearby communities that provide free land
and utilities. Brookings competes for businesses recruited for the region and Brookings
business expansions.
(Brunner arrived at 5:08 p.m.)
Reed asked is there is a step within the BEDC when they review the request. Heuton said the
Incentive Committee evaluates all requests.
Bartley said he served on the site development committee for a number of years and one of
things they discussed was value of land and Resolution No. 79-04 was an outcome of that
discussion. The train of thought at that time was more real estate based value. The $1.00
figure was discussed and eventually was adopted by the City. But it wasn’t meant to be
permanent, but rather a starting value. Apparently, we haven’t done any appraisals or
significant changes to that policy and it is obviously something that needs to be accomplished.
He suggested the following two methods: 1) through an appraisal process using assessed value,
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
67
or 2) call it “negotiable” and leave it up to the BEDC to make the deal. He expressed
concern that appraisal processes take too long in a real estate deal.
Heuton agreed, stating all the steps in the current process can take upwards of 6 to 8 weeks
and our competitors can write same day deals.
Bartley asked if we need to restructure our process and make that negotiation happen without
coming back to the Council every time. He expressed concern about tying BEDC’s hands in
the process and deals fall through. There are good processes in place with the site
development committee using the incentive scorecard and every deal that comes along is
different. He’d like to see the City get rid of the $1.00 per square foot reference and it be
negotiable and the BEDC be authorized to make those determinations based on scorecard
ratings.
(Bezdichek arrived at 5:14 pm)
Heuton asked if the $1.00 per square foot was passed in the resolution. It was clarified that
the resolution states “market value.”
Ryan Krogman, BEDC Member, said they did some research for comparables, but the city
owned property sales aren’t “arms” length transactions because there are incentives involved.
He said the committee reviewed costs of similar property in Watertown and Sioux Falls.
Sioux Falls was at $1.25/sq. foot and Watertown was $1.00, so the committee recommended
$1.00 for Brookings. This number was the baseline for someone wanting to buy property that
didn’t ask for an incentive and was not creating more economic development. That was the
benchmark and when economic development (jobs, etc.) became involved, that number was
negotiable. He’s not sure if that number is relevant now. Some towns are giving land away.
He’s not sure if the price for that land has gone up, but is sure the cost to acquire it has.
Bartley thanked Krogman for providing history on the $1.00 figure and said the Council needs
to establish a policy that says the cost is negotiable. He recommended getting rid of the $1.00
per square foot reference.
McClemans said the $1.00 figure came from a transaction that occurred in 03 and 04. A party
purchased property at $10,000 per acre which was approved by the Council. However, the
party moved a building onto the property, didn’t hook up utilities and then sold the property at
retail value and the property changed hands again at retail value. After that the Council
analyzed how to treat an applicant who is not providing additional economic development value
to make sure citizens and tax payer dollars aren’t taken advantage of. That is how the $1.00
per square foot was developed. He doesn’t know if that’s a locked in number and thinks it
comes down to the type of business coming in. For approximately 20 years, the City charged
$10,000 per acre for industrial land. He feels it comes down to a value based on what business
it is (i.e. job creation). He cited several past land transactions that trouble him due to the low
selling price, the amount or lack of jobs, the type of business, and the City’s investment into the
property. He doesn’t have a problem selling small parcels because there’s not commercial
property available. He noted that the $1.00 price per square foot is actually a very good buy.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
68
He said the city’s taxable value on these properties is $25,000 to $30,000 per acre and the
city’s cost to replace the land is $41,000 per acre. He feels this sets a terrible precedence
unless we do this for everyone, whether they have two or twenty employees. There needs to
be a number that is realistic so certain individuals aren’t getting an extremely good deal at the
taxpayer’s expense. He is supportive of the $10,000/acre price. Brookings has a limited labor
force and he feels Brookings isn’t doing much to enhance itself by giving property away. He
also pointed out the cost of streets in these areas. He hopes the Council can come up with a
policy that makes sense, but doesn’t feel the current one is good business and doesn’t benefit
Brookings.
Heuton agreed that Brookings isn’t in the business of giving land away without an economic
impact. He does believe there’s been economic impact from the various transactions. He
noted that he and McClemans disagree on how much the city has invested in particular pieces
of property. He noted that one of the parcels was small and it won’t get a large business.
Also, that there isn’t any heavy commercial land available anywhere in Brookings and businesses
need somewhere to go.
Heuton illustrated a comparison of the percentage of total employment for Brookings County
verses the State of South Dakota. He said part of an economic program is to diversify the
economic base. Brookings has many excellent manufacturing industries but it has too many
manufacturing jobs which present some long term problems for Brookings and we need to
diversify. Other types of businesses should be considered beyond the traditional manufacturing
that Brookings has sought in the past.
He noted that there’s a difference in what land is valued at and what it would be valued at
‘shovel ready’. If the City of Brookings doesn’t want to do those kinds of deals, the BEDC
needs to know and won’t do them in the future.
McClemans referred back to a small two acre parcel stating that no manufacturer would build
on it. A person purchases it because there’s no other land available at a price of $80,000,
which he feels isn’t excessive. However, the City’s cost on that lot is $105,000 for the streets
and other improvements. He feels that is a good example of a property that should be been
sold in that price range. He has a problem with an individual getting a commercial rate and
then renting out part of the building. He has no problem with the citizen owning the building
or renting it, but feels the citizens of Brookings should get their money back.
Heuton said that’s the discussion that needs to occur. Does that money come back in the form
of real estate transaction or economic development impact? The estimated direct economic
impact the BEDC had on that particular parcel over a five year period was $345,000 in the
form of wages and taxes with no multiplier effect attached. That’s the question for the Council
to address – is it a real estate transaction or an economic development transaction to help
guide the sales.
Munsterman said looking back over seven years of watching this issue; the Council has had a
blended mix of the economic development impact making up for real estate value. In looking
at scorecard and economic impact summary, those are the things the BEDC has come to the
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
69
Council with. Here’s the score and here’s what the business is willing to pay and those are the
types of discussions held in the past in executive session. We’re dealing with a party that can’t
be named for confidentiality and that’s the scenario that’s played out. Maybe what the City
Council needs to think about is a process that it’s comfortable with? Should it be more formal
as in the resolution or should the Council get out of the business and just set aside a certain
amount of money every year for economic development purposes? Should the City just give
the money to the economic development organizations and direct them to find the land for
economic development purposes and the city stay out of the land transactions? He’d like for
the City Council to be happy when it makes decisions so it’s fair and clear what the economic
development impact is and that is does makeup for the real estate value.
Reed said he’s always wished that the Council could look at the whole development and
understand the total costs to the City and discuss what we’re willing to lose on it towards
economic development and what the overall goal was to the whole area.
Heuton said in the three industrial parks there were some deals the City didn’t make the
money back. However, on economic development transactions overall the City is still money
ahead. He cited an example of a parcel with city investment of $920,000 and $1.1 million on
the real estate deal. However, when the five year economic development impact is factored in
with a 2.5 multiplier, the city received a significant impact with a $1 million investment. In
economic development, the City recoups its investment in a different manner.
Bartley expressed concern about the City’s ability to buy additional land in the future. Grants,
bonding authority and other instruments will be needed. He felt just giving the BEDC a certain
number of dollars per year ties the City’s hands quickly on the amount of land it may be able to
acquire.
Heuton provided a current inventory of available land (30 acres in Svennes, 15 acres in
Telkamp, 30 acres in Wiese, 125 acres in Innovation Campus). He said there have been
projects in the past that the City couldn’t consider because the number of acres required
exceeded the inventory or the use wasn’t compatible with a particular area. There’s no
commercial land anywhere.
Bartley said the comprehensive plan shows industrial land east of 34th to the landfill, but
acquisition costs will be high. He asked if Heuton had recommendations on how to go about
purchases.
Heuton noted that eminent domain is no longer an option, so the City will either need to deal
with those property owners or look somewhere else in the County. However, utility service
and fiber optics becomes an issue with land farther out into the County.
Bartley questioned how to fund the purchase of additional land. The City is heavy in
manufacturing and can’t support many more, but it’s short in other ancillary businesses and
would welcome them. It’s part of a whole picture and whole plan that needs to be done in the
future, but can start here.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
70
Munsterman asked Weldon if he could try to draft a policy based on the discussions.
Weldon said before he can write a policy the fundamental question of real estate transaction
verses economic development transaction must be answered. His advice was if the City was
going to consider these real estate transactions, then why is it even bothering. If the City
considers these economic development transactions, that’s what helps move the community
forward, and then make the investment. At that point an appraisal maybe doesn’t make a lot of
sense. But he does think there’s some value in setting a price that is negotiable so when he or
Heuton get cold calls they can provide an answer and start discussions. He strongly urged the
Council to think of these as economic development transactions because that’s why we’re in
this business. As nice as it would be, the reality is that private businesses independently
coming to a community just doesn’t happen often. They look to the city. While acquiring land
may be the easy part, utilities are the real challenge because that’s where the bigger share of
the cost is. In terms of direction, Weldon asked the Council to consider these as economic
development transactions. He believes there’s some wisdom to place a value on land to get the
discussion process started and work together to determine where and how the City can
acquire land for future development and deal with the utility issue as it comes around. We
need to keep the economic impact issue in front and look at what it will bring and what the
spin-off will be to answer the full value.
Munsterman suggested Weldon and Heuton draft a policy geared towards economic
development with competitive advantages for the Brookings area when it comes to real estate
valuation using tools from the BEDC in that analysis and then to bring it back to the Council for
further philosophical discussions.
Heuton suggested the BEDC committee could hold this discussion and include a couple of
Council members to help.
McClemans said there is a difference between economic development and real estate
transaction. People can purchase property, put up a building, do a business and create jobs.
It can vary from 10 jobs to 100 jobs and the unfortunate part of this discussion is that the
BEDC Director didn’t realize there was a policy that existed related to industrial land sales. It
gives some people a terribly great financial advantage to sell property at that value. How does
the BEDC turn down similar transactions that come and what property do you have available?
The BEDC is selling at 25 cents per square foot when infrastructure and land costs are figured
in. There’s no reason not to do both – the economic development side and the dollar per
square foot.
Heuton clarified that the BEDC sells the land after the city decides to sell at a particular price.
He will apologize if he’s overselling a project to the City Council. He feels the City and BEDC
and come to terms on this process and determine what types of deals the City wants to do.
He feels he’s obligated to notify the city about anyone inquiring on city land and the City decide
whether or not to sell it. The City has negotiated the price up with potential businesses and
has won some and lost others. There are many economic development issues to investing and
growing a business over a period of years and letting someone come in and take away them
away from Brookings because we’ve asked too much (in their mind).
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
71
Reed said he would like to see a blended model between the two. There are times that we
need to move some land to someone in town but can’t find what they need. It’s still economic
development about keeping a business in town, but it’s more of a real estate transaction.
Somehow also show the total cost should be in front of the City Council or BEDC agreed upon
cost so not arguing about those numbers.
Whaley referred to the economic development score sheets that are done on potential
businesses and she noted that Heuton said he hopes they keep their end of the bargain. She is
concerned that land has been given away and the City doesn’t know if the business met their
summaries and standards to come here. She said she’s undecided on the issue, but feels the
City needs to set a price. She noted there are many things the City needs to look at with a
project and was in favor of a blended approach. She feels there needs to be follow-up and
accountability, particularly pointing out the estimated annual payroll.
Heuton thought that was a valid question and is not sure how to solve it yet. The BEDC can
monitor if the building is built. Payroll and employment can be monitored with loan programs,
where it’s a bit easier to follow. The BEDC could include something in the ‘claw back’ related
to employment, but noted that even states with loan programs take a soft line on going back on
a business recruitment. Particularly what is happening in the economy today, businesses need
some level of flexibility. One of the problems they run into in trying to close a land deal is the
business wants hard and fast rules and doesn’t want to rely on the City Council’s subjectivity
when the membership turns over. The BEDC can require payroll reports and verifications.
However, when Brookings is in a competitive position with other communities that give land
away and we start requiring things, we’ll have difficulties and maybe the City wants to let that
business go. The Council needs to determine that level it is will to get involved in the
economic development process to grow the community.
Brunner leans more to economic development rather than real estate citing the long term
impact of jobs, sales tax and property tax. It would be nice to streamline the process so it
could be completed faster and the BEDC has more flexibility with city staff.
Bezdichek said he can see both sides of the issue and recommended a case-by-case basis. He
would look differently at an existing industry or business that has been here for 25 years and
looking at expanding than a new business.
ACTION: A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by McClemans, to
direct the City Manager to coordinate with Al Heuton, BEDC Executive Director,
and his Board to develop a policy that would address the economic development
and real estate land process, and in conjunction with that policy development
Council Members Bartley and McClemans volunteered to participate in the policy
development. Discussion: Other council members with comments are
encouraged to share their comments with the City Manager. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
(Whaley left at 6:00 p.m.)
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
72
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Bartley, to approve the
agenda, which included:
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action on Resolution No. 93-08, authorizing the City Manager to sign a Liquor
Operating Agreement Renewal for the Safari Lounge.
Resolution No. 93-08
Safari Lounge Operating Agreement Renewal
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves a Lease Renewal Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management
Agreement between the City of Brookings and Safari Lounge for the purpose of a liquor
manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City
of Brookings at 421 Main Ave., also known as the Safari Lounge.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 41-08 A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 41-08,
budget amendment. Public Hearing: November 18th
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 42-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 42-08, an
ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to hotels and extended stay hotels. Public
Hearing: November 18th
City of Brookings Quarterly Financial Reports. Shawna Costello, Assistant Finance
Director, presented the quarterly reports. No action was taken.
Storm Water Plan Process. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by McClemans, to
approve the timeline and process for the Storm Water Plan as stated below and set a special
meeting date.
Jeff Weldon, City Manager, introduced the item stating it was to identify a date and schedule for
the City of Brookings Master Drainage Plan was adopted by the City Council at their
September 23rd, 2008 meeting. At that the Council asked staff to come back with a calendar
and schedule for milestones for the process, which is included.
Jackie Lanning, City Engineer, recapped that the Master Drainage Plan includes thirteen specific
study areas, SWMM model data for the City of Brookings and future growth areas, and cost
estimates for projects. The Master Drainage Plan is not intended for maintenance and nuisance
issues. The Master Drainage Plan addresses two general issues, which are improvement of
existing drainage conditions throughout the City of Brookings and future growth areas and
technical SWMM model data which may be used by consultants for drainage analysis of existing
and future developments. Staff has been reviewing the Storm Water Master Plan in detail,
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
73
which will require a significant amount of time due to the voluminous amount of information in
the report.
The City currently has a good framework for stormwater planning in place for new
developments. Current City Ordinance requires new developments and redevelopments to
submit a drainage plan as specified by the Brookings Storm Drainage Design and Technical
Criteria Manual that was adopted in 2006. City Ordinance requires detention or retention
facilities for development, which will help assure that the drainage problems will not continue
to get worse. The Criteria Manual is working well, and consultants are familiar with the
engineering and hydraulic requirements of the manual.
Over the past number of years, the engineering staff has received calls and citizen input about
drainage concerns for different locations in and around Brookings. Staff has documented these,
many of which were included in the Master Drainage Plan in the thirteen specific study areas. It
is our intent to hold public meetings with the Brookings City Council instead of individual
meetings with engineering staff. As we continue to work through the study and prioritization
process, individual meetings with engineering staff may be added to the schedule if they are
needed.
Lanning proposed the following schedule and process:
No. Task Date Description
1. Internal Staff Review November 2008 Engineering Dept. staff to review
the master plan document
2. City Council Work
Session with City
Engineering Staff
December 2008
Discussion & Council input on
study areas
Discussion & Council input on
storm event sizing philosophy
Discussion & Council input on
ranking criteria system for projects
3. City Council Work
Session with City
Engineering Staff and
Troy Thompson, ERC
January 2009
(Public Invite for
input)
Discussion on preliminary ranking
results for projects
Public Input
4. City Council Work
Session City Engineering
Staff (and Troy
Thompson, ERC if
needed)
February 2009
(Public Invite for
input)
Discussion on proposed prioritized
list
Discussion on project funding
Public Input
5. City Council Work
Session with City
Engineering Staff
March 2009
Adoption of prioritized project list
Discussion of next steps for project
design and land acquisition
6. City Council Work
Session with City
Engineering Staff April 2009
Discussion on Priority #1 project
timeline and funding
Budget discussion on prioritized list
for current and future year’s
funding
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
74
She noted that this calendar is proposed as a draft, and the dates and goals may be modified as
we continue the prioritization process. The overall goal is to adopt a prioritized list of
projects/goals which will give guidance to the engineering staff for future projects and land
acquisition. The March 2009 deadline will also allow the opportunity to budget for the future
projects in the City’s typical budget process.
Council Discussion: Munsterman noted when reviewing the timeline that it is very comprehensive with a
lot of detail that has to get done. He said the City and staff will need to spend the 5 or 6 months doing
the work because it’s important. Lanning said some items could be condensed if the Council would like
it to be a shorter process. Their overall goal is March 2009. It’s important to get projects designed
and going by March in order to achieve bid lettings and construction. Weldon noted that two months
is needed for public input and is one area that the City doesn’t want to shortchange timing. We’ll
work to shorten it up as much as possible, but in order to do it right and get this in place and start
working during the 2009 construction period. He thinks January and February will be crucial for public
input. He noted that’s not the only opportunity for public input. Citizens are still encouraged to contact
city officials with information, input and questions. McClemans said the timeline is fine but noted it
took three years to get the study from August of 2005 so whatever we can do to speed up the process
would be appreciated. It’s been a long drawn out process and he expressed concern about time.
Public Comment. Rosey Fritz, 1741 8th Street, noted that none of the City Council was on the Council
when the Garden Square drainage issue was brought up. She and neighbors have been calling the
Mayor since 1992 and many have died since then. She questioned why the issue was taking so long
and noted how much additional concrete and hard surfaces have been added in that area and what
runs through the drainage ditch. She gets water in her garage when it rains and has come close to
coming inside the kitchen. She urged the City Council to address this issue and anything they could do
to help would be appreciated.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Consideration of architectural review for vacant building. Jeff Weldon, City Manager,
said this item is consideration of getting a proposal from an architectural firm to look at the
First Bank and Trust building as a possible site for a future City Hall. What this does is it
represents the next step in our space needs study analysis discussion which is part of the City
Council’s strategic plan. We’ve already completed the space needs analysis for the facility and if
the City is seriously looking at acting upon that and making some moves on space needs
options and the Council wants to look at this building and consider this, the next prudent step
would seem to be that we take a look at the building from an architectural perspective and
basically look at two things: 1) Take the information from the completed space needs analysis
and determine if those needs fit in the space provided in this potential building, and 2)
Determine what the cost would be to do the modifications taking a critical look at the
structural integrity and various systems. His recommendation is while he would like to look at
local architectural firms, he would have a preference for TSP Architects of Sioux Falls. They
conducted the space needs analysis for the City and, in his opinion, is in the best professional
position to translate that information into a building analysis. If the City selects a different
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
75
architect, it may have to back-track to bring them up to speed on our space needs analysis thus
far.
Weldon announced that since the Council packet came out on Friday there are two new
developments that have occurred on this issue. He’s been contacted by Banner Associates Inc.
asking for the opportunity to bid. If the City opens up the process, there’s another
architectural firm in town – DesignArc. Then he’d recommend a RFP process.
The second development that has occurred is that the Brookings County Commission has
secured TSP for a similar study on this building. It turns out that the County is still interested
in this building.
Therefore, Weldon recommended the City hold on this issue. It makes no sense for two
governmental units to go after the same report on the same building. He spoke with
Commissioner Dennis Falken this morning and the County indicated they’d be willing to
partner with the City also wanted to use the study. He recommended to delay this issue at this
time and will continue to work with the County and if there is an opportunity to work together
on this issue.
Bartley said there was a statement in the analysis that if this were to transpire and move to that
building or any other building, that this current building could be used as a Law Enforcement Center in
its entirety? A joint law enforcement facility seems to him to be the number one priority. He cited a
variety of scenarios, but suggested a discussion should occur with the County about a joint law
enforcement facility concept.
Weldon said the County’s number one priority is a County administrative building and law enforcement
is the next set of priorities. This building would allow the police department to have improved facilities
by staying in City Hall. Whether the Sheriff and County facilities could move into this building is
another question. He has learned it is possible to have separate facilities for detention and county
sheriff operation. It’s certainly worth taking a look at a good adaptive reuse of this building for a
combined law enforcement facility.
Tax Increment Financing District Policy Discussion. Jeff Weldon, City Manager,
presented a draft of a policy related to governing the use of tax increment finance as an
economic development tool. The policy is written strictly within the statutory parameters of
South Dakota Codified Laws. Where SDCL provides latitude for local government discretion,
he has attempted to provide guidelines for its use within that level of discretionary local
authority. This document is the result of policy guidelines from other communities as well as
guidelines that have governed our experiences with our existing four districts. As a policy, it is
intended to provide guidance and direction in using tax increment but still leaves latitude and
flexibility for the Council to deviate from the document if it determines particular conditions
exist that merit the modification.
Weldon reviewed the draft policy in detail. A copy of the document is available at the City
Clerk’s Office.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
76
Council Discussion. Munsterman suggested a ‘high level discussion’ on different sections be held at two
or three work sessions.
McClemans said a TIF is a good too, but has concerns in several areas of fairness to developers and the
return on investment to the City. He agreed that a detailed review during work sessions was a good
idea. What is affordable housing? Different programs have different price points. It could be unfair
to other people in development business if they are at a disadvantage. The City needs to discuss what
is fair to all developers and what the city is getting back for their investment. He noted that
development has slowed and he doesn’t want to see the City pushing TIFs where it hurts other
developers. Further discussion on the affordable housing price range is needed. That point has grown
to $160,000 which gets into direct competition with those not receiving a TIF.
Weldon said the purpose of the policy is to provide the Council with overarching guidelines but it
doesn’t replace the Council’s decision making authority. Affordable housing is a moving target SDHA
changes the numbers every year. The City will need to decide what the level should be on each
application. This policy will not be a substitute to making those tough decisions. The City Council will
need to look at each application and ask those types of questions. He noted that Section 3 of the draft
policy lists those very questions that need to be asked as part of this process. Only when an applicant
is able to answer all of those, will the City decide if it will move forward or not.
McClemans said one of things that will be decided over the next six to eight months is how the TIFs
that are already done will affect older housing that’s in competition. He agreed that TIFs can do good
things, but he doesn’t want them to hurt citizens who own houses in the East Acres Addition. He
doesn’t want to see house prices drop because the older homes are in competition with TIFs. In the
current economic development condition he’s seeing house sales start to struggle and prices are
dropping.
Bezdichek agreed with McClemans stating there’s a degree of risk with this and with what the City
Manager talked about in the contents of this policy. The policy states “city reserves to reject their
project.” The City almost has to micromanage the units in the project, the value of the house. He
expressed concern about defining what is affordable. He also expressed concern about current and
future wages and what would happen is there was a lowering wage adjustment and the TIF units were
no longer affordable. He agreed with McClemans that he’s concerned with fairness, particularly that of
other new developments that aren’t TIF and the affect on selling older homes. He agreed that the
Council would have to look at each project individually, but would also have to follow all the definition
and questions. Are each of the units being built for the benefit of those people’s wages in that public
housing project?
Reed said the policy has to be flexible and the decision making be up the City Council seated at the
time or either we don’t use it for personal housing. That may be the decision it comes down to because
he’s not sure how much the City can control.
No action was taken.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Bartley, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
77
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
78
Brookings City Council
November 18, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at
City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members
Julie Whaley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, and Mike McClemans. Council Members Tom
Bezdichek and Mike Bartley were absent. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve
Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Consultant Report on Swiftel Center Feasibility Validation Study.
Jeff Weldon, City Manager, said after reviewing the feasibility report for the possible expansion
of the Swiftel Center which was conducted by VenuWorks Consulting, the City Council
decided to have a validation study by having another firm analyze the market data for a second
opinion. This was enumerated in Goal Number 8 of the Strategic Plan. Requests for Proposals
were issued for consulting services to conduct the validation study. Three respondents were
evaluated and HVS Consulting from Chicago, IL was selected. They were here a few months
ago for a field visit and conducted extensive research before, during, and after their visit.
The Council was provided with HVS’s final report and the lead consultant for the project, Tom
Hazinski, presented the findings of the report. Weldon noted that this report was also
presented to the Swiftel Center Advisory Board. With the results of two independent studies
on issue of a possible expansion of the Swiftel Center, the City Council will need to decide in
the coming months what course of action to take, if any, on this issue.
Mr. Hazinki reviewed the report in its entirety. The following is only the Executive Summary
without the chart references. A full copy of the report is on file with the City Clerk or on the
City website.
“HVS Executive Summary: Overview. The City of Brookings, South Dakota engaged HVS
Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting (“HVS”) to review the “Public Assembly Facility
Feasibility Study: Options for Expansion of the Swiftel Center” (the “VenuWorks Study”) by
VenuWorks. The City of Brookings, as well as the County of Brookings, owns the Swiftel Center and
contracts with VenuWorks to operate the venue. The Swiftel Center is an events center with a 5,500-
seat arena, a multi-purpose banquet room, and meeting space.
Methodology. To review the VenuWorks Study, HVS consultants traveled to Brookings in the week
of August 21, 2008 during which we performed a site inspection, reviewed plans for the proposed
expansion, met with key industry participants, visited competitive venues and lodging facilities, and
gathered relevant data. HVS analyzed and interpreted event planner survey data that was previous
collected in the course of the VenuWorks Study. HVS also gathered and analyzed event and financial
data from comparable facilities, and compared them with the Swiftel Center’s historical operations.
Additionally, HVS developed an alternative facility expansion recommendation and independently
forecasted event demand and financial operations with and without an expansion.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
79
Key Findings. Analyzing VenuWorks survey results, data from comparable facilities and historical
demand of the Swiftel Center, provided HVS with a strong basis from which we could provide
independent facility recommendations and demand and financial projections.
As part of the study, VenuWorks conducted a survey of South Dakota convention and meeting
planners. HVS analyzed sections of the survey results to determine event planner needs. Survey
responses regarding exhibit, banquet and meeting space requirements, as well as demand for
proximate hotels, provided HVS with insight into the needs of event planners who have previously and
would potentially use the Swiftel Center. Figure 1-1 illustrates the space requirements of survey
respondents.
An overwhelming majority, almost 70 percent, of event planners recorded that they require a ballroom
with capacity for between 101 and 300 persons. Only 11 of the survey respondents indicated the need
a ballroom large to accommodate 501 to 700 attendees and no respondents require banquet space for
between 701 and 1,000. Roughly 60 percent of meeting planners require meeting space with no
greater than a 200 person capacity, while almost 80 percent of respondents need only one meeting
room.
The VenuWorks survey also questioned event planner as to their preferences in the proximity of hotels.
Figure 1-2 shows the results.
For current users of the Swiftel Center, over 90 percent prefer attached accommodations, while sixty
percent of potential Swiftel Center clients prefer an attached hotel, demonstrating the demand for an
attached hotel to the Swiftel Center.
VenuWorks provided HVS with historical demand for events held at the Swiftel Center from January
2001 until June 2008. HVS removed all internal events from the database and reclassified events to
allow for comparison to other comparable venues. Figure 1-3 summarizes event data for 2001 through
2007.
Between 2001 and 2007, the number of events held at the Swiftel Center grew significantly, however
demand peaked in 2006 with 366 events. Much of the increase in events between 2005 and 2006
was due to the use of the facility by Daktronics for training and meetings. In 2007, the company
opened a meeting room and training facility on its property and moved some seminars out of Brookings.
Since 2003, the number of sports events held at the Swiftel Center remained relatively stable at 20 to
28 events; however, through the first six months of 2008, the Swiftel Center has already hosted 22
sports events. The number of banquets and concerts and entertainment events have also remained
stable, proportionally to the total number of events. The number of events categorized as “other” has
significantly increased from 2004 to 2007.
HVS compared Swiftel Center’s 2007 event data to the 2007 historical event demand of the seven
comparable facilities that HVS describes and analyzes in this report. Figure 1-4 shows the 2007 event
histories of the seven facilities in comparison with the Swiftel Center.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
80
In 2007 the Swiftel Center hosted 284 events, the median of all comparable facilities; however total
attendance of roughly 94,000, falls short of total attendance at all comparable facilities, with the
exception of the Clay County Regional Events Center.
The low total attendance figure falls as a direct result of low average attendance at concerts and
entertainment events and consumer show. While, the Swiftel Center hosts a comparable number of
these types of events, it draws significantly lower attendance for those events than its peers, due to its
location and population.
Facility Recommendations. While the VenuWorks study calls for the addition of a 12,000 square
foot ballroom and a modification of the 11,000 square feet of meeting space at the Swiftel Center,
HVS recommends an alternative approach to broadening the appeal of the Swiftel Center and
attracting additional convention business to the City of Brookings. The original VenuWorks study did
not discuss a hotel adjacent to the facility, but in interviews with key informants it was noted that
discussions about an expansion of the Swiftel Center generally assumed the development of a hotel in
addition to building a ballroom and meeting space.
HVS recommends that Brookings consider the development of a hotel property immediately adjacent
and physically connected to the Swiftel Center. New meeting and ballroom space could be developed
as part of the hotel development. While further hotel market research would be required to
recommend a specific room count for the facility, the size of the hotel could range from 100 to 150
rooms.
Industry research, analysis of comparable facilities and review of the VenuWorks survey of event
planners, in addition to interviews with local industry participants, demonstrates that the success of an
expanded Swiftel Center depends on the addition of new and proximate hotel rooms. Without the
appropriate hotel room supply an expanded center will not be able to attract new convention events.
Furthermore, most state-association events that the Swiftel Center would like to attract are meetings,
which are most likely to be based in hotels rather than in a stand-alone convention center.
Survey data indicates that most events considering Brookings could be accommodated with somewhat
smaller amounts of meeting and ballroom space than the amounts recommended in the VenuWorks
Study. HVS also recommends that Brookings give serious consideration to making the certain
improvements to the storage and kitchen areas of the Swiftel Center, as well as to the staff office areas,
as recommended in the VenuWorks Study.
Demand Projections. HVS projected demand and financial projections for two scenarios: if
Brookings decides not to expand the Swiftel Center, and if Brookings does expand the Swiftel Center.
Table 1-1 shows demand projections for both scenarios in a stabilized year. Without an expansion,
HVS projects the Swiftel Center will host approximately 255 events annually in a stabilized year,
relatively close to the 284 events hosted in 2007. Total attendance, before the loss of SDSU’s use of
the arena for athletic practices, should also remain steady at approximately 85,350 people annually. If,
as is currently proposed, SDSU successfully secures the funding necessary to build an indoor field house,
event demand for “other” events, like athletics practice during inclement weather are expected to
decrease substantially.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
81
The proposed expansion of the Swiftel Center provides an opportunity to correct some of the functional
problems of the current Center in addition to potentially attracting a number of state association
conferences and conventions. The community and university also have modest demand for additional
banquet and meeting space. The projected events and attendance for 2013 represents stabilized
demand. These projections assume a decrease in overall demand from the opening year in 2011 due
to the expected reduction in use of the Swiftel Center by SDSU sports teams for practices. Convention
and trade show demand is expected to stabilize in its first year. HVS expects increased demand for
banquets, meetings, and conventions and tradeshows at the Swiftel Center. While improvements to the
arena configuration are planned, without a significant expansion in size, it is unlikely that additional
concerts or sporting events will increase substantially.
Financial Projections. While HVS recommends the addition of an adjacent hotel with meeting room
space adjacent to the Swiftel Center property, the financial projections included in this report reflect
only the cost and revenues associated with the proposed expanded ballroom and meeting room space
discussed in the VenuWorks feasibility study. The financial projections for both scenarios, presented
below in Table 1-2, do not take into consideration the cost of building or operating a hotel nearby.
Under the two scenarios analyzed, an expansion of the Swiftel Center based on the VenuWorks
expansion or no expansion or renovation of the facility, the Swiftel Center’s operating deficit is projected
to grow. During the first year of stabilized demand at the expanded Swiftel Center, HVS projects an
operating loss of approximately $494,000. This projected deficit actually decreases initially, between
2011 and 2013, but then increases with inflation. If the Swiftel Center is not expanded, HVS projects
the facility will realize a net deficit of approximately $550,000.”
Update on City Council’s 2008 Strategic Goals. Jeff Weldon provided a progress report
on the City’s 2008 Strategic Plan. The key projects included as follows: 1) Airport Dual-Track
Analysis, 2) Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements, 3) Innovation Campus Infrastructure, 4)
34th Avenue & 20th Street Overpass Transportation Project, 5) South Trunk Utility Extension, 6)
Storm Water Drainage, 7) Space Needs Analysis, and 8) Swiftel Center Expansion. He noted
that since these projects span more than just the current year, the action steps were intended
to identify steps that were to be addressed for just 2008 even though there is some forecasting
of steps into future years. The progress analysis is intended to measure the project against this
year’s action steps only. To properly use this as an effective measurement, it is important to
use the metrics for this year only. For example, the airport project had only certain steps for
this year; it was not to complete the entire project of building a new airport or having a runway
re-aligned. The progress report measures only current year’s activity with current year’s action
steps.
During the course of the year, some of the action steps and scheduling has been adjusted in
light of changing circumstances so the outcome may not be exactly as we envisioned it when it
was adopted. Weldon noted that he felt the City had made great progress and completed or
are very near completion on these items.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Resolution No. 107-08, a resolution of intent to lease real property to a
private entity with notice of hearing was added to the consent agenda and the Library Coffee
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
82
Shop Agreement was removed for action on December 9th. A motion was made by Brunner,
seconded by McClemans to approve the agenda as amended, which included:
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action on Resolution No. 94-08, for 2009 Medical Insurance Contribution
Rates.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-08
ESTABLISHING 2009 MEDICAL INSURANCE MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION RATES
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKINGS HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 109-96 established a self-funded program for the provision
of health insurance for City employees; and
WHEREAS, establishing a corridor fund for sharing of savings and risk for a specified
claimant allows savings to the Health Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Brookings City Council intends to establish the levels of employee and
employer contribution to fund the program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2009 employee and employer
contributions to the self-funded health insurance program be established as follows:
City General Public Safety Employees
Employer's Employee's & Non-Represented PS Employees
Share (75%) Share (25%) TOTAL
Employer's
Share (85%)
Employee's
Share (15%)
Single $404.90 $134.96 $539.86 $458.88 $80.98
Employee/Minor $695.02 $231.67 $926.69 $787.69 $139.00
Dependents
Employee/Spouse $865.75 $288.58 $1,154.33 $981.18 $173.15
Family $1,074.52 $358.17 $1,432.69 $1,217.79 $214.90
C. Action on Resolution No. 95-08, for 2009 Dental Insurance Contribution
Rates.
Resolution No. 95-08
Establishing Dental Insurance Monthly Contribution Rates
For The City Of Brookings Dental Insurance Plan
WHEREAS, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2009 employee and employer contributions for
the dental insurance plan be established as follows:
CITY GENERAL & PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
83
Employer's Employee's
Share (75%)
of Single Rate 2009 Share TOTAL
Employee Only $25.38 $8.46 $33.84
Employee/Spouse $25.38 $39.52 $64.90
Employee/Child(ren) $25.38 $41.32 $66.70
Family $25.38 $65.04 $90.42
D. Action on Resolution No. 104-08, for 2009 Vision Insurance Contribution
Rates.
RESOLUTION NO. 104-08
Establishing Vision Insurance Monthly Contribution Rates
For The City Of Brookings Vision Insurance Plan
WHEREAS, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2009 employee and employer contributions for
the vision insurance plan be established as follows:
City General & Public Safety Employees
Employer's Employee's
Share (75%)
of single rate 2009 Share TOTAL
Employee Only $7.13 $2.38 $9.51
Employee/Spouse $7.13 $9.51 $16.64
Employee/Children $7.13 $12.84 $19.97
Family $7.13 $17.61 $24.74
E. Action on Resolution No. 96-08, authorizing the City Manager to sign a
Liquor Operating Agreement renewal for Pheasant Restaurant & Lounge.
Resolution No. 96-08
Pheasant Restaurant & Lounge Operating Agreement Renewal
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves a Lease Renewal Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management
Agreement between the City of Brookings and the Pheasant Restaurant & Lounge for
the purpose of a liquor manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for
and on behalf of the City of Brookings at 726 Main Ave. So., also known as the Pheasant
Restaurant & Lounge.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
84
F. Action on Resolution No. 97-08, awarding bids for City of Brookings
Custodial Services.
Resolution No. 97-08
Resolution Awarding Bids for City of Brookings Custodial Services
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for City of Brookings Custodial Services
on Monday, November 10, 2008 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for City of Brookings
Custodial Services: City Hall: Johnson Pro Clean, Volga, SD, $14,400.00 annually; Top
Notch Cleaning, Brookings, SD, $17,880.00 annually, and J & T Cleaning, Brookings, SD,
$18,000.00 annually. Public Library: J & T Cleaning, Brookings, SD, $19,440.00 annually.
Research & Technology Center: Johnson Pro Clean, Volga, SD, $7,200.00 annually, J & T
Cleaning, Brookings, SD, $7,800.00 annually.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Johnson Pro Clean for City Hall for
$14,400.00 annually, and J & T Cleaning for the Public Library for $19,440.00 annually
and Johnson Pro Clean for the Research and Technology Center for $7,200.00 annually
be accepted.
G. Action on Resolution No. 98-08, awarding bids for a front end loader for the
landfill.
Resolution No. 98-08
Resolution Awarding Bids - Landfill Front End Loader
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bid for one (1) 2009 Front
End Loader: RDO Equipment Co. Base Bid, $325,480.00. Trade-In John Deere 724J
Loader, $126,490.00. Net Price $198,990.00
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved that the bid from RDO Equipment Co., in the amount
of $198,990.00 plus the trade-in for the above-mentioned 2009 Front End Loader be
accepted.
H. ITEM REMOVED FOR ACTION ON Dec. 9th: Action to approve a contract
for the Library Coffee Shop between the City of Brookings and Harsha
Mistry.
I. Action on Resolution No. 99-08, authorizing the City Manager to sign a
Liquor Operating Agreement renewal for Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill &
Bar.
Resolution No. 99-08
Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar Operating Agreement Renewal
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves a Lease Renewal Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management
Agreement between the City of Brookings and Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
85
for the purpose of a liquor manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business
for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at 3001 LeFevre Dr., also known as the
Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years.
J. Action on Resolution No. 100-08, establishing effective date of new fee
schedules for the City of Brookings.
RESOLUTION NO. 100-08
Establishing Effective Date of Enforcement for City Fees and Fines
WHEREAS, On October 14, 2008, the City Council adopted the following resolutions
setting forth fees and fine schedules: Resolution No. 85-08: A Resolution Revising Fees
of the City of Brookings, South Dakota and Resolution No. 86-08: A Resolution Setting
Forth a Schedule of Proposed Fines, Fees and Procedures Pertaining to the Keeping and
Control of Animals in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
WHEREAS, BE IT RESOLVED that said resolutions effective date is January 1, 2009.
K. Action on Resolution No. 105-08, Authorizing Uncollectible Accounts to be
removed from Liquor Records.
RESOLUTION NO. 105-08
Authorizing Uncollectible Accounts To Be Removed From Liquor Records
WHEREAS, The Brookings Liquor has received a total amount of $7,388.27 from Citgo-
Mart-Inp in uncollectible accounts; and
WHEREAS, this accounts have been considered uncollectible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the accounts totaling $7388.27 be
determined as uncollectible and removed from the records.
L. ADDITION: Action on Resolution No. 107-08, A Resolution Of Intent To
Lease Real Property To Private Entity.
Resolution No. 107-08
BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that
the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Concessionaire Agreement with Harsha
Mistry, for a period of one (1) year and pertaining to the following described property:
Approximately 500 square feet of space located in the Brookings Public Library for the
purpose of conducting food and beverage concessions.
BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing and action will be held on the 9th day of
December, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon thereafter as this matter can be heard,
at the City Council Chambers and that all persons will be given an opportunity to be
heard on the proposed Concessionaire Agreement.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF INTENT TO LEASE
REAL PROPERTY TO PRIVATE PERSON
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
86
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 9, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon
as this matter can be heard, the Brookings City Council will hold a Public Hearing at the
Council Chambers on a proposed Concessionaire Agreement of the City of Brookings
which provides for a lease to Harsha Mistry of the following described property:
Approximately 500 square feet of space located in the Brookings Public Library
for the purpose of conducting food and beverage concessions.
At the time and place set for this Public Hearing, all who appear will be given an
opportunity to express their views for or against the proposal to enter into a
Concessionaire Agreement concerning the above-described property with Harsha
Mistry.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 41-08: Budget Amendment. A motion was made by
McClemans, seconded by Whaley, to approve Ordinance No. 41-08, an Ordinance Authorizing
A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For
Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. All present voted yes; motion carried.
20K into bike lanes…
Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 42-08: Zoning. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 42-08, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining
to Extended Stay Hotels for the purposes of administration of the zoning ordinance. No public
comments were made. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to approve
Ordinance No. 42-08. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Public Hearing – Resolution No. 101-08: SRF Loan. A public hearing was held on
Resolution No. 101-08, SRF loan application for Innovation Campus infrastructure. No public
comments were made. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to approve
Resolution No. 101-08. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 101-08
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has identified the need to upgrade the SDSU Innovation
Campus Infrastructure (Phases II-IV); and
WHERERAS, the City of Brookings proposes to undertake improvements to the SDSU
Innovation Campus Infrastructure (Phases II-IV); and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is eligible to apply for Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Program assistance for the proposed project; and
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
87
WHEREAS, with the submission of the SRF application, the City of Brookings assures and
certifies that all SRF program requirements will be fulfilled.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Brookings duly authorizes the City Manager of
Brookings to execute and submit an SRF loan application requesting loan funds not to exceed
$3.8 million funds for the proposed project to be borrowed at an interest rate of 3.25% for a
term of 20 years and to be secured by TIF district revenues and city sales tax.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager of Brookings be hereby designated as the
certifying officer for any loan agreement, contracts, pay requests, correspondence, and other
required documents as a result of this application.
This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
Resolution No. 102-08: Downtown Streetscape Change Order. A motion was made
by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to approve Resolution No. 102-08, a resolution authorizing
Change Order (CCO#7) for 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 102-08
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #7 (CCO#7) For
2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project
Winter Brothers Underground, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-
03SSI, Downtown Streetscape Project: Construction Change Order Number 7: Adjust
estimated the bid contract for the following bid items at the appropriate bid prices for a total
increase of $14,398.20 to the contract: Receptacle Post Extra Conduit, Core drill storm sewer
manhole at Station 5+06, Core drill drop inlet at Station 5+06, Saw and remove the top 30” of
the steam tunnel on 4th Street, and Irrigation hookups, hose bib valve boxes, isolation valves and
conduit.
Resolution No. 103-08: On-Sale Restaurant Licenses. Jeff Weldon, City Manager, stated
that Resolution No. 103-08 would set the fee for our Senate Bill 126 licenses. Just short of 90
days ago the City Council approved an Ordinance allowing this type of on-sale liquor license for
full service restaurants and pursuant to state law; the City needs to adopt a fee for that. He
noted that enclosed in the City Council’s packet was some background information from the
City Attorney and a couple of options (resolutions) relative to that issue for the Council’s
consideration.
City Attorney Steven Britzman said there are two options submitted to the Council, noting that
would limit the range of choices that the Council has. Why would there be two options
presented? Because it’s the most difficult issue with respect to Senate Bill 126 from the very
beginning has been the determination of the procedure to establish the license fee. That license
fee, he thinks, was incorporated into the legislation without regard to the differences in which
licenses are held. And of course Brookings, being a local option community, which is the
license holder by definition and verified in several different places. Since the City is the license
holder we had formed an opinion early on as to whether or not we would be considering the
transactions that have occurred in the five year time period prior to January 1st of 2008 to set
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
88
the license fee, which is what the group of statutes that are involved in Senate Bill 126
contemplate. He submitted two proposed resolutions to the Council because that particulate
issue of setting the license fee really depends on an interpretation of the law which at this point
in time we don’t have any guidance. All we can do is, and this is what we’ve done thus far, and
that is to research it from the ground up and try to analyze and determine how Senate Bill 126
fits into the alcoholic beverage license rules that pertain to a local option community.
Britzman said the two options represent: One, with a proposed fee of $18,504, which would
be the $1.00 per person residing in City of Brookings, which is the minimum fee. That
particular resolution contemplates that there were no transfers of the license by a license
holder or qualifying transfers during the five year time period prior to January 1st of 2008.
Certainly we recognize that there have been transfers of businesses that hold operating
agreements during that time period and we did receive a very complete submission from the
most recent transfer of an operating agreement prior to January 1, 2008, submitted by Gus
Theodosopoulus and that was complete in all respects.
The second alternative resolution contemplates taking that information that Gus
Theodosopoulus submitted to us and considering that transfer of that operating agreement to
qualify as a transfer under Senate Bill 126. In order to do that, you would have to conclude
that that particular business was a license holder of a retail on-sale license and that it
transferred that license for consideration here in the City of Brookings. We formed some
opinions he thinks from the very beginning that we felt that there is only one license holder in a
local option community and that one license holder would be the City and that’s verified in a
couple different places. Attorney General Opinion that he came upon, he quoted one
sentence, “as the license holder of the on-sale liquor license, the municipality has the legal
ability to condition the operation of a business under that license in any legal manner
authorized or empowered under South Dakota Codified Law 35-4…”. So, it does define the
City as the license holder in a local option community setting of an on-sale license.
The recent declaratory ruling that the Department of Revenue issued also makes reference to
the fact that the Senate Bill 126 statutes contemplate transfers by license holders. In response
to one of the questions pertaining to the fee setting procedure, he quoted part of the ruling, it
says “…yes, both SDCL 35-4-1.17 and SDCL 35-4-2.10 require the on sale license holder as of
January 1, 2008 who acquired the license within the last five years of that date, to report the
price paid for the on-sale license to the municipality that issued the license…”. That again, is
from the recent declaratory ruling uses the term “license holder.” So we can kind of see that
when we try to analyze where the City of Brookings fits into this scheme we know that we’re
eligible for licenses under Senate Bill 126, but as far as considering whether the reported
transfer that Mr. Theodosopoulus submitted to us qualifies as a transfer of a license, that is the
point that is subject to pretty intense debate. He would say that there are two sides to the
coin, there are two sides to this argument. So submitting the two resolutions, he thinks we
have to make a choice and it’s not an easy choice to make, in terms of either giving credence to
transfers of an operating agreement as a transfer of a license. That’s difficult to make that
decision and it is for him to make a recommendation actually because he’s done the best he can
looking at this Senate Bill 126 and trying to sort that out. The rest of Senate Bill 126 is not that
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
89
difficult to deal with. We can understand that. But fitting this particular piece into the picture
has been more difficult.
Other factors to consider probably with respect to setting the price of the license would be the
fact that the transfers that occurred and they may have very significant economic value when a
successful business changes hands, even in Brookings that has an operating agreement. There’s
no doubt that there’s a lot of economic transfer between the seller and the buyer. So we’re
not saying that that doesn’t have value. What we’re looking at is, in terms of setting this fee
and using that transfer as a guide, we’ve got to follow the statute. When we look at that we
also look at what was transferred then, even though there may have been a substantial amount
of economic transfer between the two parties, with respect to the liquor license, that
fundamentally does not transfer. The liquor license does not transfer. What was transferred
between the parties was an operating agreement subject to approval by the City. The
operating agreement is within the discretion of the City to set the terms. We do have to
follow state law. One of the state laws that spells out some of the basic terms of an operating
agreement indicates that it’s terminable upon 90 days notice by either party. Also, it has a
maximum duration of 10 years, or five years with five year renewal. So it doesn’t have the
ongoing longevity that a liquor license would have. That is probably observed in communities
where that liquor license is operated autonomously and it not really the subject of an operating
agreement. We’ve oftentimes informally referred to an operating agreement as a lease and you
certainly can’t walk into a leased premises and say that the tenant has no rights. The tenant
has rights, almost like an owner, for the duration of that lease and once that lease expires, then
the owner has the prerogative to lease it to someone else or to use the facility in some other
way. He thinks our operating agreements in terms of duration are tantamount to that.
The other point he would make is that when we enter into an operating agreement or issue a
new operating agreement, (correct me if I’m wrong) but the fee that we’re collecting is not
what happens when a liquor license in Sioux Falls is issued. He just read the Sioux Falls
Ordinance setting the fee for their on-sale licenses and their most recent fee was $155,000,
which is a $1.00 per person which is what the statute says when you issue an on-sale license --
$1.00 per person. That statute does not apply to us or at least on a $1.00 per person, so that
is a fundamental distinction between us and Sioux Falls.
All of this he guessed is perhaps our side of the picture and in terms of trying to determine or
support our rationale, which is that from early on we felt that the operating agreements were
not held by and were not the same as a liquor license and therefore, considering the transfers
that have occurred in the last five years, it’s difficult to do because those transfers were not
transfers of licenses as contemplated in the statute. It’s entirely and perhaps overly thorough.
There are remedies if a license holder disagrees with this and he thinks that’s pretty apparent
with this statute. If Council decided to set the fee at the minimum fee, which is $18,504, there
would be remedies and the Circuit Court is the place to go to if one objected to the price.
The price that we’re setting and he’s outlined that in the memo would be something that we
have to live with for 10 years unless it is changed by a Court order or something to that effect
or the Legislature changes the rules.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
90
Mayor Munsterman asked under Option 1 the City would continue to be the license holder but
we would be charging a license fee of $18,500 initially and $1,500 annually after that and they
would be under an operating agreement just like our establishments then? Britzman said that
would be what the Department of Revenue has indicated to us; that it would be handled in the
same way. He doesn’t think the statutes provide us guidance in that regards, in all honesty.
He thinks there probably will be some changes to outline how that’s handled in our community.
But frankly, that’s what the Department of Revenue has told him that they would treat them
just like operating agreements.
Munsterman asked – the override applies, correct? Britzman responded correct, and that
would be entirely separate issue because local option community, the override would apply as a
matter of law because statutes provides that you have to buy from municipal off-sale
establishments.
ACTION: A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by McClemans, to
approve OPTION One (1) of Resolution No. 103-08, setting the fee for (Ordinance
No. 30-08) on-sale licenses for full-service restaurants.
Discussion:
Don McCarty, attorney, stated he would object to option one for all the same reasons that he’s
articulated to you for the 6 months we’ve been talking about this. He realizes Steve just went through
the one side of the argument. He won’t belabor the point that he’s made before except he thinks has
made abundantly clear. He guessed the only thing that he would point out with regard to that issue is
that the one sentence in Steve’s memorandum dated November 13, 2008, in the second paragraph it
says, “the Department of Revenue has indicated that they do not believe there is a distinction between
an operating agreement and an on-sale license for the purposes of setting the fee. And that simple
statement is the, he believes, an indication by Steve and he believes is correct that the Department of
Revenues agrees with him with regard to that issue. He would certainly object to this Council adopting
option one based on that and he could have more public comment if we move on to option two but will
wait until that comes up.
Council Member Reed asked Britzman if he feels if we were to adopt option two that we would be
giving credence to the fact that or giving credence to that there’s actually a purchase of a license
verses being leased? Is that what you are saying? Britzman said Option 2 is based on analyzing the
transfer information and using that to set the price. That is correct. So there was a transfer of a
license.
Reed asked if we went down that path, that license then could be resold? Britzman responded correct.
Reed restated, the holder of it could resell it if what you’re saying? Britzman said right, and he thinks
that we have to reserve the possibility that these licenses could be interpreted as being, well, the
Legislature may add substantial additional provisions and guidance as to whether or not these can be
sold or not, even in this community with a local option rule of law here. He thinks that that is a distinct
possibility that that will be clarified.
Munsterman said he thinks the basic premise is that he was at and Steve is at too looking at this is that
the City is the license holder – we hold the license. He guesses if somebody could give him proof
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
91
otherwise as in a bill of sale that the City actually sold a license, which there is none. So it reverts back
to that we are a local option community and we’re going to interpret this law the best that we can and
apply it. But like Steve said, there’s probably going to need to be some direction and clean up on the
Legislature’s end of things and he’s sure the Department of Revenue will look at that come this next
session. He really thinks this is really where we need to move ahead based on what the Senate Bill
126 is put in front of us and give us a good opportunity to this community to expand that area, which
would be good. That’s where he’s coming from. The fundamental is that we are the license holders
and option one really, unless we want to really deviate away from that, and he doesn’t see any reason
we should unless somebody can argue that otherwise.
Council Member McClemans said he’s going to support the $18,504 population dollar value and he
also expecting these liquor operating agreements to operate just the way our other licenses do, with a
different fee setup, but they’ll operate through the city which holds the license. He doesn’t see a
reason for the City to vary from something they’ve done for 41 years. It’s negligent for us to break off
and start issuing licenses in a manner as other communities do. The City of Brookings since 1967 has
issued operating agreements and there are some statements here he’d like to read out of the actual
operating agreement. “This agreement was made and entered into by the City of Brookings, hereunto
referred to as the City, and the bar owner or restaurateur, described as the Manager. The City desires
to enter into an operating agreement on a limited basis with the manager for purposes of operating an
on-sale establishment or business on behalf of the City. Whereas, the Manager is authorized to have
facilities to operate the on-sale establishment solely upon the premises as described.” McClemans said
we assign this license to an address, a legal description, that’s all part of the operating agreement and
the agreement, again, is made and entered into in a limited basis between the parties to allow the
manager to operate a retail on-sale premise in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
City. This agreement is in accordance with all state laws and ordinances now in effect. The thing
that really makes him feel there’s a difference in the way Brookings does things is either the Manager
of the bar, restaurant, or whatever, or the City may terminate this agreement without cause upon 90
days written notice served by either party upon the other. He finds it very hard to feel at something
someone can terminate without cause of 90 days notice. Apparently, that party does not own what
we’re discussing. The license is owned by the City. The operating agreement is how the City has chosen
under state law to operate this liquor industry and they’ll all have to operate under the same 11%, 10%
purchases they make at the Liquor Store. All their product has to be bought from the Municipal Liquor
Store. The way this has worked has done very well for the City of Brookings and he thinks to vary from
it would be a mistake.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 103-08
Resolution Establishing The Fee For The Issuance Of Additional On-Sale Licenses
For Full-Service Restaurants In The City Of Brookings
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as
follows:
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota has authorized municipalities to issue additional on-sale
licenses for full-service restaurants pursuant to Senate Bill 126, and
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
92
WHEREAS, as required by State law, the license fee charged for a full-service restaurant on-sale
license shall be set at or above the current fair market value for such license. However, any fair
market value so established shall be a minimum of one dollar for each person residing within
the City as measured by the last preceding decennial federal census, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that 18,504 persons resided in the City of
Brookings as measured by the last preceding decennial federal census, and that the minimum
license fee for the initial issuance of on-sale licenses for full-service restaurants shall be
Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Four Dollars ($18,504.00),
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the minimum fee for the initial issuance of on-sale
licenses for full-service restaurants shall be Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Four Dollars
($18,504.00), and the fee for each annual renewal shall be in accordance with SDCL 35-4-2(4),
which is currently Fifteen Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the license fee charged for a full-service restaurant license as
provided herein shall not be modified unless it is determined that the City of Brookings is
required to recognize transfers of its operating agreements during the period between January
1, 2003 and January 1, 2008, in which case an amended Resolution shall be required which
addresses the provisions provided in Ordinance No. 30-08 g (3) shall be utilized to determine
the license fee.
Update on Railroad Safety Projects (crossing arms/whistle free zones). Jeff
Weldon said the purpose of the update was to provide information regarding the eligibility of
funding for intersection crossing upgrades. The sale of the DM&E Railroad to the Canadian
Pacific appears to be finalized soon. DM&E staff has indicated that once the sale is finalized,
Canadian Pacific will proceed with a project to upgrade the rail system. However, we do not
know a timeline for the upgrade project.
City Engineer Jackie Lanning has visited with South Dakota Department of Transportation
(SDDOT) staff about safety funding. The SDDOT does have federal safety funds available for
railroad safety improvements. The City would need to request funding for a project, and the
SDDOT will prioritize the projects and add them to their STIP. State funding has already been
allocated for 2009; however requests can be made for 2010. The federal safety funds have a
10% City match requirement.
The funding available by SDDOT is strictly for safety improvements, such as crossing arms with
center medians. The funds may not be used for whistle free zones, which would involve four
quadrant gates. SDDOT staff indicated there are safety issues with four quadrant gates, as a
vehicle may be stranded within the gates. The City would be required to pay the full cost for
any improvements for whistle free zones.
This topic may be put on an upcoming work session, and staff could invite Susan Tracy from the
SDDOT depending on the Council’s next step regarding this issue. Council members agreed
that more discussion at work session outlining the action steps and goals would be appropriate.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
93
Resolution No. 106-08: ICAP. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to
approve Resolution No. 106-08, A Resolution Providing For The Development And Transfer
Of Lot 3, Nelson Eighth Addition For Purposes Of Constructing Homes To Eligible Clients Of
The Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 106-08
A Resolution Providing For The Development And Transfer
of Lot 3, Nelson Eighth Addition For Purposes Of Constructing Homes
to Eligible Clients Of The Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership
WHEREAS, ICAP has utilized USDA-Rural Development funds for a self-help program to
provide housing to eligible persons, and
WHEREAS, ICAP continues to experience hardship in finding and acquiring developed lots
within a price range that allows eligible persons to continue to afford their homes, and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has a parcel of property ideally-suited to accommodate eight
residential lots suitable for ICAP housing, and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has adopted a housing plan that describes the need for
additional affordable housing, and this project meets that need.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Brookings undertake the
development of the parcel into eight residential lots on behalf of ICAP, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT The City transfer the developed parcel to Brookings
Economic Development Corporation for $160,000 who shall, in turn, transfer the parcel to
ICAP for the same amount.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to enter executive
session at 6:53 p.m. for purposes of discussing marketing or pricing strategies and pending
contractual matters with the City Council, City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney present.
A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to exit executive session at 7:16 p.m.
Adjourn. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present
voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
94
Brookings City Council
December 9, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner (arrived at 5:53 p.m.), Tim Reed, Mike McClemans, and
Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Deputy City
Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Tax Increment Financing District Policy Discussion.
Weldon stated the purpose of this policy is to give some direction as to the use of this
economic development tool for future projects, with every project coming to the Council for
approval. It is not something that can be approved administratively, as there are a number of
steps that involve the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each project would have to
stand on its own.
One item Weldon drew their attention to was Item #22, ‘Projects will only be considered if
they are projected to generate a minimum positive increment of $1 million within the first five
years.’ Weldon feels this requirement could be put on individual projects that come before the
council, but to have it as part of the policy might be a bit onerous and projects would have a
tough time meeting that threshold and could prematurely disqualify some otherwise good
projects. The intent was to have a minimum amount by which all the paperwork and all the
legal aspects are really worth doing; the $1 million was a number suggested by our financial
advisor. If you look at that against the first two TIFs, which are non-housing districts, neither
one would meet this requirement of generating $1 million of increment in the first five years of
operation. Weldon recommended deleting Item #22.
McClemans sees a place for TIfs, but is not sure it should be for housing, unless there is a real
definite need. McClemans visited with people at the National League of Cities Conference in
Florida and found some communities have never done TIFs for housing, but rather only
industrial and commercial. He would like to know if we are looking to expand infrastructure or
create more housing opportunities. He is concerned about doing more housing TIFs, as the
first two TIFs the city has done are for housing, but it is yet to be seen if they are really what
we should be doing.
Weldon stated McClemans has an excellent point. The whole idea is to have a policy
discussion on whether or not to use this tool, and if so, what are the terms and conditions of
its use. There is a process in the draft policy by which a housing district would come before
the council in the form of an application and the council will have opportunities to say yes or
no, we’re going to do a housing TIF, or we’re not. The council can reject any TIF application
for any reason. All this policy does is, if we are going to use TIFs in the future, is to have a
policy in place that is going to guide some of the decisions on what that application is going to
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
95
look like and what the council’s expectations of the project would be. The council could put a
provision in the policy that says ‘TIF projects will be used for commercial/industrial projects
only and we shall not consider housing districts.’ The council could do that or they could leave
it a little more open ended and reject applications as they come before the council.
McClemans stated as people bring forth projects, each project will stand or fail on its own
merit. He is not sure how many projects will be brought forth, and is not sure of the need. He
favors TIFs as far as expanding infrastructure into areas that are not served by infrastructure.
There are about 70 lots in the TIF, and would certainly like to see how it works. He asked
how you turn one person down when they bring forth a project that is pretty good; rather,
how do you pass on one and fail another. He doesn’t think he wants them all to pass. Weldon
responded that you can turn one down on the basis that the previous ones have met the supply
for the community…that is a legitimate basis for turning one down. We have enough…we are
going to let the market catch up. You can simply say we don’t want to consider any more TIFs
for a while.
Munsterman thinks the way the policy is written gives that flexibility, and hinges on what do we
need as a community. This sends a very clear message to developers that this is a tool, but it
isn’t going to be on the back of the City.
Bezdichek believes he has learned a bit from the very first TIF discussion. However, in regard
to residential TIFs, he is a bit more reserved. He repeated John Mills concern that the council
makes sure it is a fair playing field. Brookings has had what is considered to be affordable
housing. With the housing TIFs he sees affordable as questionable for the house size, lot size
and location within Brookings. He stated an example of a house valued at $168,000. If a
developer builds a $168,000 house on a $30,000 lot, that house has a value of $138,000,
whereas a $168,000 house built in a TIF district on a $15,000 lot has a value of $153,000. Both
properties are valued at $168,000, but the house itself in the TIF district would be viewed as
more expensive. Bezdichek views this as unfair.
Bezdichek stated under the general guidelines, Section 2, Item #4: pay-as-you-go, the council
has to make certain, due to the city’s involvement, all of these TIF’s, particularly housing, are all
done the same. Bezdichek also spoke of concerns with Section 5: site preparation and grading
of the land, construction of capital improvements; in regards to whether developers have had
to first put in curb, gutter, sidewalk and those sorts of things. Bezdichek does not want TIFs
where those things would be put in later. It is his understanding there may be a TIF district
done currently that they’ve not necessarily maybe played by the rules to where curb, gutter,
sidewalks, were installed first. If the city is involved, he feels the city should have some say in
regard to how this is done, and the maximum amount a house located in a TIF District costs.
Bezdichek believes that $115,000-125,000 houses seem to be what is in demand. He feels all
developers ought to be doing things the same, and doesn’t believe at this particular time that
that is being done. He stated those as his reasons for his reservations on residential TIFs.
Weldon responded the current issue Bezdichek is referring to is in Valley View Addition. The
developer asked Weldon about the curb issue, and granted a variance to that requirement
because he was trying to be reasonable in that requirement for that one developer, and had
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
96
nothing to do with the fact that it might have been in a TIF district. That developer was the
first and only person that asked, which opened the flood gate to requests after that. Weldon
stated had he had the opportunity to do over again, he would have made that decision a bit
differently. Be as it may, they asked and provided him with an alternative way of preserving the
City’s Ordinances by having the curb professionally engineered, designed, and staked, so they
knew what the elevations were in the absence of that one curb. It had nothing to do with the
fact that it was or wasn’t in a TIF district; it was a development issue.
Whaley stated there have been several issues on the TIF districts, which is why there is now a
policy in hand. TIFs were started in order for contractors to get a jump start, because all the
council heard about was the housing problem, this problem and the other problem. She
realizes some contractors can use it, some can’t, and some can afford it, and some can’t. With
the policy in place, she sees there is now direction on which way to go…more to the retail and
commercial end. Reed agreed with Whaley and stated this should move forward.
Munsterman reminded the council Weldon suggested removing Item #22 and stated this will be
on a future action agenda.
Weldon stated Al Heuton had a good technical point on ‘Section 2, Item #5: the applicant shall
waive their right to use the discretionary formula.’ When the discretionary formula is applied
to projects, it lessens the amount of increment that becomes available and puts a severe crimp
in the ability to raise adequate funds to meet the obligations. It has been standard practice for
most South Dakota communities on tax increments that they have that provision where they
waive that right and its immediately at the full-tax value upon development. Al Heuton, BEDC
Executive Director, stated the technical question he had related to if one was to do a TIF
district, whether residential or commercial, or if a developer uses a TIF to install infrastructure
in a larger development, they themselves may not be building any buildings in that development.
He stated the research park for example, as a TIF district when a private developer goes in to
build a building, that discretionary formula applies to that building and not necessarily to the
research park. He doesn’t know if you could require someone, whom had nothing to do with
the tax increment project, to waive the discretionary formula. Weldon stated he will ask Toby
Morris or Todd Meierhenry for a response to Heuton’s concern. Weldon believes you can, as
one pledges the tax revenue stream off that property to go toward increment and the amount
of what the taxes are going to be will be significant to the cash flow of paying the debt. Heuton
stated once a piece of property is sold, it is no longer attached to the developer; it then
becomes a new property owner. He doesn’t know if that would stick in every situation.
Weldon explained the tax increment goes out for several years beyond the initial owner, and
those taxes are pledged to the project, so he believes that would transfer to whoever owns the
property for the duration of the TIF. Weldon will follow up with counsel on that.
Brunner arrived at 5:53 p.m.
Bartley too sees it as worth a follow-up. Tax relief is automatic; they don’t have to apply for it.
If they want to waive that right, they have to write a letter and actually waive that right right
now. We can’t just take it away; they have to request it to be removed.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
97
Discussion Regarding Provisions of Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreements.
Weldon stated he believed this to be the last technical revision before making operating
agreements under SB126, restaurant liquor licenses, available. There has been some discussion
off-line with Council Members Bartley and McClemans and Mayor Munsterman about some of
the technical provisions and what they would be; a point-of-sale system requirement for
establishments as a way of helping with an audit, the scope and extent of an audit/audit
requirements, and if there would be a minimum size requirement for the establishment either
in terms of seating capacity or square footage.
McClemans stated the point-of-sale system would aid in monitoring the 60/40 requirement.
Most restaurants use a point-of-sale where things are run up, whether alcohol or food, and
allows them better control of their inventory and the type of business they are doing. Under
SB126, the 60/40 is required to be monitored, and believe it would be a good thing to require
people to have. Franchises such as Applebee’s, Subway, etc. already have that type of cash
register system. He felt it would help alleviate predicaments of a business struggling to meet
the 60/40.
Bartley stated the council should not be in the business of monitoring businesses or telling them
what type of operating system they should have for their record keeping system. SB126
requires reporting sales of food and alcohol separately. Under SB126, business owners are to
sign a report and swear an oath annually that what they are reporting is true. Bartley stated we
can audit whatever bookkeeping system they may have. Every business owner follows the same
state system… it is a one-sheet form; on one line you put down your sales total and on another
line you put your exempt sales, and the third line is subtraction of the two which gives you
your taxes. You then sign the report and send in payment. You are not required to send in
your computer report, point-of-sale report, or your napkins that you wrote your sales on. This
is a pretty important tax document to the state of South Dakota…much more important
obviously than 60/40 restaurant liquor license bill. If a business is audited, then you have to get
out the computer at the point, print your reports and show your data to back that report up.
That is the proper way to do an audit; not the city requiring a point-of-sale system or any
accounting system for a restaurant or licensee or an operating agreement under this system.
He sees that as micromanagement. If someone is going to be deceitful on their numbers, they
are going to figure out a way to do it no matter what system they use. They would still have to
sign the report and be subject to an audit. Monitoring with a particular system is not required
and certainly if the state can believe business owners on sales tax, which is an important source
of revenue for all of us, they can certainly believe our reports for food and liquor sales.
Reed questioned who will receive the report the business owners sign; the city or the state?
Britzman responded it would be the city, as the city will be the one monitoring these licenses.
The initial reporting requirement is contained in one statute and indicates the on-sale licensee
shall provide sufficient documentation to the municipality and there is no forwarding of that
information. With respect to the renewal, the municipality shall condition the license renewal
upon receiving documentation that not more than 40% of the gross sales in the preceding 12
months be derived from the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages. This is going to be
monitored just as is done with an operating agreement.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
98
Munsterman asked how to carry it out, how to get the information, and how often do we want
it? It is required the council receives this information annually, but questioned if this is
something to be monitored more frequently than that.
Bartley stated we don’t have an auditing system for the on-sale liquor operating agreement
holders. If we are going to audit the restaurant liquor license holders, then don’t we have to
audit all operating agreements holders? The rationale for not auditing them is we trust them,
and if we find out that there is a violation, we would take action. Those provisions are there. If
we change this, we have to change that. He sees this too as micromanagement.
McClemans stated these licenses require auditing. It is in the city’s best interest to make sure
these people do well, that they meet 60/40 requirements in order to stay in business. There is
no grace period and no way to monitor it when someone fails, and their license apparently
comes to an end. He feels it is the city’s responsibility to make sure these people are successful
and that they meet the requirements. The state law says the municipality is responsible for
monitoring the 60/40 and has nothing to do with current liquor operating agreements that
purchase their liquor from the city. This law and this license requires auditing.
Bartley asked McClemans if he is suggesting the city is responsible for the success of these
businesses. McClemans stated, yes, they are our Operating Agreements. Bartley disagreed and
questioned why the city would be responsible for the success of a business. McClemans stated
in order for them to operate under one of our operating agreements, they need to meet the
state law 60/40 requirement. All we are doing is monitoring them. Bartley does not want to
open that can of worms.
Munsterman stated this is something that needs to be resolved. There is a balance, and we
don’t have a feel how delicate the balance may be between food and alcoholic beverages in an
establishment. The question may come up of how often to check with a business to make sure
that their 60/40 balance is maintained. At the end of the day, end of the year sort-to-speak, if
that balance is out of whack and they have 41% or 45% alcohol instead of 40%, they would lose
their operating agreement. Munsterman doesn’t want to see that happen. It needs to be
carried out properly and in a way to foster a good relationship, a cooperative type relationship,
and still be able to monitor the whole system to do our job with the state.
Reed commented this discussion dovetails into the audit requirements and would like to have
that discussion and come back to the point-of-sale system. Reed would like to know the depth
and scope of the audit.
Britzman stated at the outset the accounting system needs to be developed to separate out
those two items (food and alcohol) from all other types of revenue. There is a need for an
accounting system that addresses this requirement of monitoring the two revenue streams:
food and alcoholic beverages. The key words in the statute are documentation adequate to
make the determination that the business meets the 60/40 requirement. In terms of verifying
the accuracy of an accounting system…audits are typically done sporadically/randomly. We
would have the authority to verify the accuracy of the documentation; auditing. A non-
traditional style of audit the IRS does is send out letters looking for specific information; a not-
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
99
so-intrusive way of gathering the necessary information. There may have to be an educational
step as to what an audit is, what verified under oath signifies, and the consequences if the
information is not accurate. Audits are not called for in our current operating agreements,
unless it is determined that provisions of our current operating agreements are not being
complied with. A couple ways of checking things without auditing would be to: verify all
purchases are from the municipal off-sale establishment, verify the municipal off-sale liquor
store has been properly paid, or check with vendors to verify accuracy. The primary issue,
with respect to supervising the compliance obligations under SB126, would be to use
reasonable steps to verify that the 40/60 split, at least annually, is achieved. Statute doesn’t give
any guidance as to intermediate steps other than the annual report in which they would need to
comply or they would not be eligible for renewal.
Munsterman sees three points that need to be addressed: 1) a report form developed by
either staff or auditors, 2) in regards to city staff responsibility, who will conduct the audits, and
would training be needed, and 3) would the audits be done only annually in addition to the
annual report.
Weldon stated the city has the right to conduct audits more frequently than once a year. State
Law doesn’t give any direction or specifics as to what the form, the content, or the scope of
that auditing procedure is. He feels with help from the auditors and finance staff, developing
some common-place practices for conducting an audit could easily be developed.
Bartley stated SB126 calls for an annual report, which would be subject to an audit. We can
either make the operating agreement state the audit will be conducted annually or say they are
subject to an audit, and do it on request, or on demand.
He stated from a complaint basis, if an audit is done on Hobo Day, the alcoholic beverage sales
may be higher than food sales, and their report will not look good. However, maybe the
quarter before looked better, and it is found they are not at the 60/40 currently, but very well
could be at the end of the year when the Annual Report is due. What value did it give the city
to look at that? It might give the business owners some value to look at that, but he would
hope that most business owners are going to look at that on their own to make sure that they
are meeting the requirements without having to submit a report saying they are or are not
complying every 30 or 60 days. State law is pretty specific that once a year they must meet the
60/40 requirement. There is no gray area or grace period. It is up to the business owner to be
certain they are meeting those requirements, and understand of the consequences their license
will not be renewed if they are not in compliance. Bartley doesn’t want to get in to the
business of the government babysitting these people on how to run their businesses. He sees it
as unnecessary, intrusive and the data doesn’t prove anything other than on an annual basis.
Kip Pharis, owner of BraVo’s, commented the 60/40 split is big. BraVo’s runs around 18% for
alcoholic beverage sales. In talking to some other business owners, he has found franchises all
require point-of-sale systems. A point-of-sale system is a good thing to have for ease of
auditing, especially with not being in and understanding the restaurant business. He views these
restaurant licenses are for food development….to bring people into the community and build a
better Brookings.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
100
Munsterman asked Pharis what his thoughts are on the annual report. Pharis stated once a year
is plenty. As a business owner, you need a point-of-sale system, and a viable accountant. One
benefit of the point-of-sale system, is once the numbers are created, you can’t change them or
recreate them. It is a good thing.
Munsterman asked Pharis what his thoughts are on a minimum size requirement for an
establishment, whether it be square footage or seating capacity. Pharis agreed there should be
a size requirement, and somewhere around 3,000 square feet should be adequate for a
successful business. Using BraVo’s as an example, BraVo’s is around 3,500 square feet, and if it
was any smaller it would be too small to produce any revenue or benefit for Brookings. He
views 1,500 square feet as too small, as the smaller the place, the smaller the kitchen, the fewer
requirements, the less policing needed to be done.
Bartley stated SB126 was designed as an economic development tool to help communities with
fine dining, not specifically chains. You can have a Mom & Pop operation on Main Street
specializing in an ethnic food, seating 15-20 people, and also wanting to be able to serve liquor.
If they could buy that particular license and serve 60/40, why deny them just because they don’t
have 3,000 square feet? Why deny them if they had 15,000 square feet and said that’s a little
big, you’re going to be a bar? Who determines what is small or large enough? Those business
plans will come to us and give us an ability to look at them to determine if we want to issue
those operating agreements based on location, the character of the business … just like the
operating agreements we have now. A business will survive if they have a good business plan.
We don’t need to overburden them with a requirement of a specific type of accounting system.
He agrees with Pharis that the point-of-sale is a preferable system, but questions if the council
should require someone to have it. Bartley is aware of some businesses that still operate off of
napkins, sheets, guest checks, etc. Are those efficient systems - that is not the council’s
decision to make if they provide the data needed. All he sees the council needing to do is
develop the form for the figures, and determine if an audit is going to be done annually, or be
subject to audit. Bartley prefers subject to audit as a business wouldn’t know when or if they
would be audited.
Bartley attended committee hearings in Pierre where some of these same issues came up,
including size. He is concerned about making rules that can’t be enforced. When making rules
on size or book keeping systems, someone will always be cut out. The council will have the
ability to look at each license request to determine if it meets the criteria for economic
development and whether it appears to be a good business plan or not. He feels the operating
agreements currently in place with several business owners work well, and should follow that
as close as possible.
A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to direct the City Manager
and the City Attorney to develop the new Operating Agreement under the
auspices of SB126 and add the requirement of 3,000 square feet, add the point-of-
sale, and the audit requirements as stated in state law. Also, put this on a future
action agenda for more discussion on point-of-sale system and square footage.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
101
Reed seconded and added a friendly amendment that a certain percentage are
audited every year.
Council Discussion: Weldon asked for clarification on the square footage; if it was relative to seating
capacity and service area, or the total establishment. Munsterman said the total establishment.
Britzman clarified the Annual Report is under oath, and there is a choice in how frequent the audits
would be. Munsterman asked Reed for clarification on the friendly amendment regarding audits. Reed
stated he added it to the motion to be part of the discussion at a later point in time.
Bezdichek stated he doesn’t get hung up on audits. The annual state Liquor and Wine Licenses expire
each year on December 31. In accordance with State Law, license renewals must be acted on by the
governing body. Bezdichek is concerned with the number of types of licenses the city holds; on-sale
liquor, on-sale malt, on-off sale malt, etc. He questioned how all of these are monitored and by whom.
When the city granted Old Sanctuary their license, various criteria was put forth in the operating
agreement, from noise control to sidewalks being shoveled. He mentioned Perkins and their holding a
license to enable them to continue to have a smoking section. If they are not using their licenses ‘the
right way’, does that give the city the right to yank their license? He sees the need for an auditing
system, but doesn’t know how any one person could keep them all straight and be on top of the various
restrictions in accordance with each type of license.
Bartley stated businesses don’t always do what they say…take for instance Hy-Vee. Bartley read Dick
Stoffer’s comments from a previous council meeting in regards to where the wine would be located
within the store. There are wine bottles all over the store, the flower dept., the meat dept., etc. He
knows we can’t have it both ways, but there are things that happen that we can’t and probably
shouldn’t control. You cannot always believe what you are told, and cannot pass rules based on what is
said. Due diligence must be done. He is not going to speak against the motion, as it requires action
later on.
On the motion all present voted yes; motion carried.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans to approve the
agenda, which included:
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the October 14, 2008 City Council Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John Deere 544G Loader
as surplus property.
Resolution No. 108-08
Declaring Surplus Property
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is the owner of the following described heavy
equipment formerly used at the City of Brookings Street Department:
One (1) 1996 John Deere 544G Loader serial number DW544GD555430
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
102
WHEREAS, in the best financial interest, it is the desire of the City of Brookings to sell
same as surplus property;
WHEREAS, the City Manager hereby authorized to appoint three qualified appraisers to
appraise the value of the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings,
South Dakota, that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-
13. The 1996 John Deere 544G Loader will be replaced with a
2009 John Deere 544K Loader.
D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney.
Legal Services Agreement
______________
THE CITY OF BROOKINGS AND STEVEN J. BRITZMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW agree that
the City of Brookings has appointed Steven J. Britzman to serve as City Attorney for a two (2)
year period, commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2010, and the City of
Brookings and Steven J. Britzman desire to set forth the terms of their Agreement concerning
the provision of legal services by Steven J. Britzman as City Attorney as follows:
1. Performance of Legal Services
Steven J. Britzman shall perform all legal services as provided in the "Scope of Services for City
Attorney for City of Brookings" (the "Scope of Services"). A copy of the Scope of Services for
City Attorney is attached hereto. Steven J. Britzman will perform all legal services which shall
include representing the City in Magistrate Court in the enforcement of City Ordinances.
2. Insurance Coverage
Steven J. Britzman shall maintain Attorneys Professional Liability coverage in the amount of One
(1) million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and One (1) million dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate
during the term of this agreement. Steven J. Britzman shall be responsible to pay any deductible
amount under the foregoing coverage.
3. Conflicts of Interest
The parties to this Agreement understand that actual or perceived conflicts of interest are
defined in great detail in the Rules of Professional Responsibility which govern attorneys and
which are a part of the statutes of South Dakota. Accordingly, Steven J. Britzman shall follow
the Rules of Professional Responsibility, immediately disclose to the City Council and City
Manager any conflict or the appearance of a potential conflict, and resolve the issue to the
satisfaction of the City of Brookings and the other client.
4. Compensation for Legal Services
Steven J. Britzman agrees to provide all of the legal services provided in the Scope of Services,
for a monthly sum from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 of Five Thousand Four
Hundred Fourteen and 68/100 ($5,414.68) Dollars, payable on the last day of the month.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
103
For the year beginning January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, Steven J. Britzman shall be
paid a monthly sum of Five Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-one and 26/100 ($5,631.26) Dollars,
payable on the last day of the month.
The hourly rate for other legal services, including those set forth in Item 15 of the Scope of
Services is $125.00 during the term of this Agreement.
The legal services provided by Steven J. Britzman shall be performed as an independent
contractor and Steven J. Britzman shall therefore pay all payroll and business expenses incurred
in providing legal services to the City.
5. Expense Reimbursements, Meetings and Conferences
In addition to the compensation for legal services during the initial year of this Agreement, the
City will provide Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per year for membership in the
International Municipal Attorneys Association (IMLA) (currently $600.00 per year) and for
Conference registration, travel and lodging for the Annual Meeting of the International
Municipal Lawyers Association which includes at least sixteen hours of continuing education.
During the second year of this Agreement, the annual sum of Two Thousand Dollars
($2,000.00) for IMLA Membership and annual conference shall be increased to Two Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00).
The City Attorney will also be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when required to travel
outside the City of Brookings to other meetings or to perform legal services, provided such
travel is approved by the City Manager in advance of travel.
6. Legal Services not within the Scope of Services
Steven J. Britzman shall first obtain approval of the City to perform any legal services excluded
from the Scope of Services, however Steven J. Britzman and the City agree that it is appropriate
for the City Attorney to be responsive to residents of the city, the media, other municipal
attorneys, municipal league and other public officials where communication or an appropriate
measure of assistance is in the best interest of the City.
Dated this 9th day of December, 2008.
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CITY ATTORNEY
FOR CITY OF BROOKINGS
THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PERFORM THE FOLLOWING SERVICES:
1. Legal counsel shall attend all City Council meetings as the legal advisor for the Brookings
City Council, unless the absence is due to vacation or illness or the subject matter does not
require the assistance of counsel.
2. Provide all necessary legal consultation services, including oral and written opinions and
research as requested by the Brookings City Council and the City Manager.
3. Provide legal assistance to the City’s Boards and Commissions except the Utility Board and
Hospital Board as requested by the City Manager and City Council.
4. Provide legal representation to the City in litigation initiated against the City and by the City
in circumstances where the City is not represented by legal counsel assigned by its
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
104
insurance company. Legal representation and litigation must be authorized in each instance
by the City Council.
5. Assist in the preparation and review of all contract agreements, resolutions, ordinances and
other legal documents considered, adopted or endorsed by the City.
6. To maintain a working knowledge of Municipal Law on both the State and Federal level.
7. Provide legal representation for the City before administrative bodies upon special request
by the City Council.
8. As requested, review all claims made against the City.
9. Confer with colleagues that specialize in areas of law to establish and verify a basis for legal
proceedings; serve as a liaison between outside legal counsel and City Officials on
specialized legal issues.
10. Prepare a monthly written report on current and on-going activities of the City Attorney’s
Office due at first City Council meeting of the month for the preceding month, together
with a monthly statement of legal services performed which includes a description of the
service and the time required to perform the service.
11. Assist the City Clerk and the private sector firm in Ordinance Codification.
12. The City Attorney will be an advisor to the labor negotiating staff and will review labor
contracts as required or requested.
13. Maintain professional awareness of current literature and changes in law and attending
continuing legal education to ensure the most efficient, cost-effective, and accurate
operation of the City Attorneys Office.
14. Review proposed state legislation affecting the City and prepare or supervise the
preparation of state legislation relating to municipal and city government matters as
directed by the City Council. Consult with City Council, City Manager and department
heads in regard to such legislation and testify before legislative boards as requested.
15. The City Attorney’s basic fee would not include the following services:
a. Litigation
b. Appearance on behalf of the CITY before Courts or administrative bodies (other
than Magistrate Court).
c. Special projects assigned by the CITY to Attorney.
Fees and services in a-c above will be as negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.
E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for accessible parking violation.
Resolution No. 109-08
Resolution Increasing Fine for Violation of Accessible Parking Space
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings desires that there be adequate available parking for
persons with disabilities.
WHEREAS, the fine amount for a violation of use of a designated accessible parking
space has not been changed since 1988.
WHEREAS, the current fine amount is $25.00, the State allows $200.00, and most major
cities in South Dakota have a fine of $100.00.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
105
WHEREAS, the Brookings Committee for People Who Have Disabilities supports this
action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the Brookings Police Dept. requests the fine
amount be raised from $25.00 to $100.00.
F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a house moving hourly fee for
police escort.
Resolution No. 110-08
Resolution Amending the Fee Schedule for Moving Structures in the City.
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings desires that there be a safe environment maintained
when a structure is being moved inside the city limits.
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of public safety that Law Enforcement be present
during such a move.
WHEREAS, the presence of Law Enforcement assists with safe traffic flow, especially at
large controlled intersections and railroad crossings.
WHEREAS, sometimes it can take up to three (3) Officers to assist with a safe move of a
structure, which can cause shortages of manpower for other duties and responsibilities.
WHEREAS, the City is not currently compensated for this special circumstance of Police
presence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the City of Brookings shall impose a fee of $50
per hour for each Officer and patrol car (one unit) and that the contractor or house mover will
be responsible for this fee. That the Officer in charge of the shift will identify how many units
are needed to safely accomplish the move. And, that there will be a two (2) hour minimum for
each unit assigned.
G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending Great Lakes as the carrier
for Essential Air Service.
Resolution No. 111-08
Essential Air Service
WHEREAS, the City is desirous in maintaining Essential Air Service for the community;
and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the bids for Essential Air Service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council endorses Great Lakes as the primary preferred Essential
Air Service provider; and
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
106
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brookings City Council authorizes the
Mayor to write a letter of support to the United States Department of Transportation in
accordance to Council recommendation of the preferred Essential Air Service provider.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 43-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 43-08: An
ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5,
Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South). Public Hearing: January 13th
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 44-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 44-08: An
ordinance rezoning the West 338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W,
except the South 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A District.
Public Hearing: January 13th
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 45-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 45-08: An
Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008
Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Second Reading: December 16th
Lease of Real Property: Library Coffee Shop. A public hearing was held on a lease of
real property to a private entity – Library Coffee Shop Contract. A motion was made by
Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to approve a lease of real property to private entity - Library
Coffee Shop Contract. No public comment.
Council Discussion: Weldon clarified state law requires a public hearing when leasing real property.
Bezdichek asked Elvita Landau, Library Director, what the process was that they went through in
determining which coffee shop would have a satellite shop in the library. Landau stated the Library
Board determined in summer 2007 that they would like to have a coffee shop in the Library. Inquiries
were sent to several local businesses about this idea, but they didn’t receive any positive responses.
This past summer, Harsha Mistry approached the Library Board with interest in doing this and that is
where negotiations began. Bezdichek asked if the agreement would be on an annual or 2-year time-
frame and how it will be evaluated. Landau clarified it is a 1-year contract with an evaluation for
success to be done each year. The contract states negotiations can start within the last quarter
whether or not it is a success or if there should be a change in the rate of rent.
Whaley commented most coffee shops start with coffee and snacks then expand into soups and
sandwiches. She wondered if that is something that is going to be brought forward later, or is that in
the agreement that already talked about. Landau stated zoning put forth by the Planning Commission
allows them to have beverages and packaged foods. The Library Board would have to ask for a zoning
change to offer anything more.
Whaley questioned the exact location of the 500 square feet upstairs in the Library. Landau clarified
the Coffee Shop will be on the second floor, East of the Cooper Rooms in an area that is not being
utilized, located in front of the windows that looks down onto the circulation desk. The countertops
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
107
would take up a quarter of that area with five or six tables and chairs and comfortable seating. It
would take up a fair portion of the area with part of the area being library use and part of it being
coffee shop.
Whaley asked about the janitorial services being provided by the library and if a portion of the rent paid
will help pay for those services. Landau stated Ms. Mistry will take care of the Coffee Shop area. The
library would do the vacuuming and cleaning of the tables, which is what is being done currently. Yes,
part of the rent could go towards those services.
Weldon asked for clarification on the motion, if Brunner’s intent was for the agreement. Yes.
Reed asked if one would be able to take coffee downstairs into the main part of the library, or bring
materials upstairs to read. Yes to both questions. Landau stated the Library Board has removed the
‘no beverages’ stipulation and will require any beverages within the library to be covered drinks. The
only area beverages will not be allowed is in the computer lab. Landau also stated there is wireless
access on the second floor of the Library and they encourage people to bring and use their laptops.
On the motion all present voted yes; motion carried.
Annual Liquor and Wine Renewals. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley,
to approve the annual liquor and wine renewals. No public comment. All present voted yes;
motion carried.
Liquor On-Sale: Applebee’s/Porter Apple Co. B Inc., 3001 LeFevre Dr., BraVo’s, 610 Medary
Ave., Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill / GDT Inc., 307 Main Ave., Danny’s / David Olson Inc., 703
Main Ave. So., B P O Elks Lodge 1490, 516 4th St., Fireside, 2515 E. 6th St., Jim’s Tap, 309 Main
Ave., Half Pint Enterprise Inc / Lantern Lounge, 303 3rd St., 9 Bar Nightclub, 303 Main Ave.,
Pavilion, 2500 6th St., Pheasant Café & Lounge, 726 Main Ave. So., Prairie Lanes/Busick-Nelson
Inc., Ram & O’Hare’s Ent LLC/The Ram, 327 Main Ave., Ray’s Corner / Fergen Ent. Inc., 401
Main Ave., Safari Lounge Ltd, 421 Main Ave., Skinner’s Pub, 300 Main Ave., VFW Post 2118, 520
Main Ave. Liquor Off-Sale: Municipal Liquor Store, 780 22nd Ave. So.
Wine On-Off Sale: BraVo’s, 610 Medary Ave., George’s Pizza, 311 Main Ave., Guadalajara,
1715 6th St., Suite F, Hagman’s Bakery, 307 3rd St., Halstead’s Natural Bakery & Restaurant, 417
Main Ave., Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22nd Ave., Main Street Pub, 408 Main Ave., Old Sanctuary,
928 4th St., Perkins Family Restaurant, 2205 6th St., Skinner’s Pub, 300 Main Ave., Shamrock, dba,
1104 22nd Ave. So.
TABLED ITEM: Memorandum of Understanding - SDSU Wellness Center. A
motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to remove the item from the table. All
present voted yes, except Brunner abstained; motion carried.
Excerpt and motions from the July 22, 2008 City Council Meeting: A motion was made by Whaley,
seconded by Reed, to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and
South Dakota State University for the Wellness Center.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
108
July 22, 2008 Council Discussion: Dr. Michael Reger, Vice President of Administration for South Dakota
State University, presented the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Brookings and SDSU. This MOU is pursuant to City Resolution No. 115-96 that declared the city’s
intent to sales tax funds for the Wellness Center. Dr. Reger requested this item be tabled until he can
present it to the Board of Regents. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to table. All
present voted yes, Brunner abstained, motion to TABLE passed.
Dr. Reger, SDSU Vice-President, clarified the three changes within the MOU since the last
discussion: 1) Section 4 stated student costs and access to the Wellness Center. This was
removed as the students have the right to access by virtue of commitment of funds to the
project. 2) Section 5, faculty and staff costs and access to the Wellness Center. Faculty and
staff members can still join as they see fit, but they felt it wasn’t appropriate for this particular
agreement. 3) On the last page, there was an addition of legal language the board attorney
wanted. The way it was originally written, it would have to be sent to the Regents, sent back
here, then back and forth about three more times, and he wanted to make it a more simple
process. Should the council approve this MOU, once the Council signs and Dr. Chicoine signs,
it will then go to the Board of Regents and the process is finished. The rest of the agreement is
as originally presented.
No public comment.
A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to amend the original motion with the
strikes and additions as presented by Vice-President Reger. All present voted yes, except
Brunner abstained; motion carried.
A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to approve the main motion with changes as
identified within the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU
for the SDSU Wellness Center. All present voted yes, except Brunner abstained; motion
carried.
SDSU Wellness Center
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS, the 2004 legislative session of the Legislature of the State of South Dakota
by Chapter 120, and as amended by the 2006 legislative session at Chapter 99, all at SDCL 13-
51-1, authorized the Board of Regents to contract for the construction of and the equipping
and furnishing of a Wellness Center at South Dakota State University, Brookings, at an
estimated cost of $12.1 million to be paid from other funds under the control of the Board of
Regents, from gifts and grants to South Dakota State University specifically for this purpose,
including bond proceeds provided by the City of Brookings, and from financing provided
pursuant to chapter 13-51A, all of which were appropriated to the Board of Regents for the
purposes of the act; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2 of the act empowered the Board of Regents to expend funds
obtained for the purposes of the act and appropriated the funds to the Board; and,
WHEREAS, Section 3 provided that the administration of the design and construction of
these facilities and oversight of building committees appointed therefore, as provided in Chapter
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
109
5-14-3 shall be under the general charge and supervision of the Governor and the executive
director of the Board of Regents or their designees; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings by virtue of the power granted to the City of
Brookings under SDCL 9-12-4 and 9-12-5 has the power to enter into an agreement with the
State of South Dakota and with any authorized agency of the state to carry out any authorized
municipal function, and is authorized to give and convey any personal property of the
municipality to the state to be used for an authorized public purpose upon the terms and in the
manner provided by resolution of the governing body; and,
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota identified the property described as follows, to-
wit: From the SE corner of the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 110N, Range 50W proceed
N90°W 332 feet and E90°N 79 feet to Point of Beginning (POB). From POB proceed E90°S 224
feet; thence S90°W 419 feet; thence W90°N 224 feet; thence N90°E 419 to POB. Said tract
containing 2.16 acres of Section 24, T110, R50W; and upon which real property is to be
constructed the Wellness Center facility as authorized by the legislative acts mentioned
previously; and,
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota is constructing a Wellness Center facility on the
campus of South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, on behalf of the Board of
Regents of the State of South Dakota; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is contributing to the financing for the construction of
said facility to enhance the availability of multi-use facilities for the City of Brookings and
surrounding Brookings County area; and,
WHEREAS, in order to recognize the cooperative effort of the City of Brookings and
South Dakota State University for the use of the facility, which is being jointly constructed, and in
order to reduce to writing the contractual obligation established by the Board of Regents and the
local unit of government, namely, the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation of the State of
South Dakota.
NOW, THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding and legally binding contract is
entered into by and between (South Dakota State University) the Board of Regents of the State
of South Dakota and the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation of the State of South
Dakota, to set forth in writing in general terms the right of access to the facility and the nature
of the cooperative arrangements which will be utilized in the use of the facility to maximize the
benefit, not only to the campus of South Dakota State University, but also to the City of
Brookings and surrounding Brookings County area.
1. All parties to this agreement recognize that this is a legally binding contract granting
an opportunity for city residents and others to join the facility in the manner to be
established by South Dakota State University, which opportunity is granted and
given in consideration of the payment by the City of Brookings of $500,000 for the
construction of and the equipping and furnishing of a Wellness Center facility at
South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
110
2. All parties to this agreement recognize that the facility being constructed is primarily
intended for the educational, health and wellness needs of the campus of South
Dakota State University, under the direction of the Board of Regents.
3. The administration of South Dakota State University, through the Board of Regents,
shall be responsible for the primary management and maintenance of the facility,
including scheduling, security, maintenance, control of concessions, formulation and
enforcement of building rules, and establishment of fee schedules for use of the
facility.
4. Brookings residents and others may purchase Wellness Center memberships at
varying cost levels to meet their individual needs.
This Memorandum of Understanding does not constitute a binding contract
concerning the specific use of the facility for any specific events, but it does impose an
obligation and duty upon the State of South Dakota to provide for a right of access to the
facility in the manner contractually established herein.
This Memorandum of Understanding for the intergovernmental cooperation and use
of the facility being constructed on the campus of South Dakota State University is executed
by South Dakota State University subject to approval by the Board of Regents.
Larson Ice Center building/parking lot modification project.
Allyn Frerichs, Parks & Recreation Director, updated the council on the interior work that is
currently underway in the Ice Arena and was budgeted for with 2009 funds. There was a
capital expenditure approved in the amount of $625,000, with $375,000 in donated funds from
BISA (Brookings Ice Skating Assoc.), and the other $250,000 in city funds. The intent was to
replace the boards in the blue rink and duplicate the permanent seating on the blue rink’s south
side to be similar to the red rink’s north side seating. There will create a mezzanine and
permanent seating for an additional 750-800 people on the north side of the red rink.
Underneath this area will be space for future varsity dressing rooms. The boards and glass have
already been installed in the blue rink. Banner & Assoc. are completing the design and
specifications for the construction of the permanent seating in the red rink with the intent the
bids will be opened in January with construction to begin April 1 and be done by June 26 before
the red rink summer ice program.
Subsequent to the budget process in early fall, BISA was offered a donation to be used to
provide some exterior modifications and appearance to the west entrance of the Larson Ice
Center. Originally, when the Ice Center was designed there were some additional exterior
treatments deleted from the original bidding process due to funding concerns. This will re-
establish that exterior façade, and change some things in the west parking lot. Frerichs showed
some drawings which portrayed an overview of what the exterior treatment would look like.
The front of the building would change tremendously with the addition of a large cover with
signage twice as large as what is there now, which would be readable from I-29, with colored
treatment, silhouettes and columns on the side of the building. The intent is for this to be a
city project. It would be let to bid by the city with construction to be summer of 2009, but not
at the same time as the interior improvements.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
111
Improvements would also be made the west parking lot. The drive-through in front of the
building will be completely closed off by a 12-foot wide sidewalk with lighting that stretches
westward from the building to the west edge of the parking lot. This change will provide for
two drop-off zones: one coming in from the south and the other coming in from the north.
There will be one-way parking on both sides of the lane of traffic, with the rest of the parking
lot staying as is. The capacity of the parking lot did not change, but there will be the required
8-10 accessible parking spots more easily identified. The concept proposed is the estimated
$125-150,000 cost of the project would be funded by the city. Since it is not in the 2009
Budget, the donor has agreed to loan the money to the city, which the city would then pay back
starting in 2012, the year after the Aquatic Center Loan is paid off, which allows use of money
for construction in 2009. The funds for the building façade, etc. would be donated thru BISA.
Council Discussion: Bezdichek asked if there is going to be bike racks out there for summer time use.
Yes. Bezdichek also asked if the trees in the drawing are currently there. Frerichs stated those trees
are there now with no construction scheduled to disrupt the area between the sidewalk and the building
other than the front entrance area. Bezdichek stated he would appreciate seeing some bike racks that
are fun, possibly something that would represent ice hockey. Frerichs stated there is opportunity to look
into that.
Whaley asked if the $125-150,000 included fixing the north parking lot. Frerichs stated there is
money in the 2009 Budget to repair and overlay the parking lot on the east side of the building, but
nothing beyond the existing asphalt. There is nothing budgeted for fixing the north parking lot. Whaley
asked if a cost estimate has ever been done for improvements to the north parking lot. Frerichs
commented there has not been an estimate done, but could get one rather easily. Whaley commented
if the east side is being repaired, that would be the appropriate time to make improvements to north
parking lot. Weldon stated he will check into an estimate for the north parking lot. Weldon asked if
the west parking lot would need to be re-striped or parking lines reconfigured. Frerichs stated there
would only be a minor striping change.
Weldon questioned a curved canopy and the types of challenges for managing falling ice and snow
sliding off the canopy. He asked if spikes were going to be used on the edges, or how will that be
managed. Rick Solonen, Banner & Assoc., stated everything currently is a schematic design as far as
selecting the type of material used. If it was a steel roof they would use snow guards that would catch
the snow and ice and keep it on the roof until it melted. They are planning on having a gutter system
which would pipe the water off of the roof to the storm sewer. Frerichs reminded the council these are
all preliminary drawings in design and cost estimates. Weldon stated staff is requesting, by way of
action, a motion to approve the conceptual aspect of the project, with direction to staff to continue to
move ahead with the project and to adjust the 2012 CIP to accommodate financing. That will then
give the authority to bid and continue work with BISA and the donor, and bring the project back for a
contract award.
MOTION: A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to approve the
conceptual aspect of the project, direct staff to continue to move ahead with the
project, and to direct staff to adjust the 2012 CIP to accommodate that financing.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
112
Bartley added a friendly amendment to include accepting the loan from the donor.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
Report from the Brookings Transportation Board.
Weldon presented this report as the final product from the Brookings Transportation Board
constituted last March. This report represents participation not only from the board, but also
from the providers in the community on a wide variety of transportation issues primarily
related to transit. They had a couple of excellent tools, with some reports prepared by North
Dakota State University. NDSU did some analysis relative to a fixed route system in Brookings.
This report is intended to be a living document which will be up for renewal by this board for
review and amendment every two years with the off-year being an implementation year to
incorporate some of the recommendations, with being subject to funding availability. It will be
an opportunity to get some transit improvement projects in the works.
Council Discussion: Munsterman would like to put this on a January work session and spend time
walking through it. He feels it is very well done and is a great start for the Transportation Board.
Reed asked if he could get a cost estimate on way-finding signage before the council discussion.
Weldon stated they could, but his only hesitation would be a matter of how many and location, as the
scope of this analysis did not look at specific placement. It would take a bit more detailed work, and
would have to look at which locations for which types of signs. The report has a list that is intended to
be as comprehensive as we could possibly think of, with the possibility of more.
Reed wondered about asking staff how they see this section proceeding. He would like to know by
budget time in 2009 to know if there’s something that could be done. Brunner suggested adding this to
the 5 or 10 year capital plan, as items there are of particular need.
Whaley questioned why emergency planning received only two votes and wondered what that consisted
of. Weldon could not recall, but will look at his notes and let Whaley know.
Reed wondered about looking at North Dakota’s study. They had a section on emergency planning
which might be a place to look that it could have gotten pulled from.
South Dakota Department of Transportation property (I-29 & Highway 14). A
motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to reject the purchase agreement for the
SDDOT property located at Highway 14 and I-29. No public comment.
Council Discussion: Weldon recommend at this point in time rejecting the purchase agreement, not
because there isn’t interest in the property, but the purchase price in this economic climate is not in the
best interest of the community at this time. He believes the council’s reasons for wanting to acquire the
property are still valid for growth in the community.
Bartley asked just as a point-of-order, motions need to be made in a positive manner and this one is to
reject. He questioned if that was considered a positive motion, or if it would be best to make a motion
to accept and then vote it down. Britzman stated the contract would provide that we are required to
give notice of our intention not to purchase. The motion would be, if phrased in a positive tense that
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
113
we desire to give notice of our intention not to purchase. It would be a motion to give notice to the
state that the city does not desire to purchase the property. That would be a positive motion, because
the subject matter is giving notice. We are not voting down the option, we are required under the
contract to give them notice and so the motion would be to give them notice of our intention not to
purchase the property. Britzman doesn’t view the motion as a negative motion.
On the motion all present voted yes; motion carried.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to enter into
Executive Session at 7:03 p.m. to consult with legal council for purpose of proposed litigation
with the City Attorney, City Manager and Deputy City Clerk present. A motion was made by
Whaley, seconded by Reed to exit Executive Session at 7:37 p.m.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
114
Brookings City Council
December 16, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., at
City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members
Julie Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, and Mike McClemans. Tom Bezdichek
was absent. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari
Thornes were also present.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to enter into
Executive Session at 4:00 p.m. for personnel reasons with the City Council, City Manager and
Human Resources Director present. All present voted yes; motion carried. A motion was
made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to exit Executive Session at 5:00 p.m. All present voted
yes; motion carried
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Swiftel Center Programming. This item was rescheduled to a meeting at which Council
Member Bezdichek could attend.
Update on Storm Drainage Master Plan. The City of Brookings adopted a draft Master
Drainage Plan on September 23, 2008. The Plan includes a multi-step review process and the
next step in that process is to seek council input on the study area, the storm event sizing
philosophy, and the ranking criteria system for projects.
Jackie Lanning, City Engineer, and Thad Drietz, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the
components of the Master Drainage Plan which included thirteen specific study areas, SWMM
model data for the City of Brookings and future growth areas, and cost estimates for projects.
They noted that the Master Drainage Plan is not intended for maintenance and nuisance issues.
The draft Plan addresses two general issues, which are: Improvement of existing drainage
conditions throughout the City of Brookings and future growth areas; and Technical SWMM
model data which may be used by consultants for drainage analysis of existing and future
developments.
They reported that the City of Brookings pursued a two phase approach towards improving
drainage issues: the Drainage Criteria Manual and Master Drainage Plan. The Drainage Criteria
Manual was introduced in 2006 for new developments and redevelopments. The purpose was
to not make flooding worse due to new developments. The Drainage Criteria Manual presents
the drainage design criteria & requirements for any new storm sewer systems.
In 2008 the Master Drainage Plan was presented. This Plan retrofits existing drainage within
the city and provides valuable flow data to be used by developers in conjunction with the
Drainage Criteria Manual. The Plan also renders budgetary level estimates of costs to resolve
current and anticipates major drainage issues.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
115
The Master Drainage Plan provides a roadmap for improving existing drainage issues within the
city and all lands downstream. The Plan defines thirty-five major basins and outfalls where the
water flows out of the city. The study area included all land within the city boundaries. Each of
the major basins’ primary conveyance structures (culverts/ditches) were analyzed for 5 year and
100 year peak flow capacity from the upper reach to the outfall. Major basins were further
subdivided into minor basins. Within the identified basins thirteen specific study areas were
selected based on localized flooding observations. A list of capital improvements required for
each area was developed for each study area, as well as an approximate cost. The Master
Drainage Plan does not prioritize the projects, but provides information necessary to do so.
The study areas identified were the Xtra Space Storage at Western Avenue & W Folsom
Street, Hammond Avenue & Horner Avenue (North of Squire Court), LeFevre Drive (Near
Cenex Station), Drainage Ditch at Garden Square Apartments, 6th Avenue Viaduct under the
Railroad, Medary Avenue & 20th Street S, Medary Avenue at 1st & 2nd Streets, 15th Street S &
Christine Avenue, 15th Street S & 7th Avenue S, 12th Street S & Southland Lane (possible
detention pond), 17th Avenue & Sawgrass Drive, 17th Avenue & Pebble Beach Drive and 20th
Street S & Main Avenue.
A capital cost estimate was developed for each recommended improvement. The costs were
calculated for the individual improvements and grouped together according to the study area.
Costs contained in this plan area are based on 2008 prices and the estimates were generated
from known material costs, bid documents provided by the city, costs for similar projects and
engineering judgment.
The estimates are for capital costs only and do not include all costs that will likely be associated
with drainage improvements including, but not limited to, easements that may be required,
property acquisition that may be required and potential utility or other conflicts, upgrading of
facilities between major drainage structures, upgrading of “neighborhood level” drainage
features and operations/maintenance.
Total capital improvement cost estimates are $13,855,950 for the 5 year storm design and
$31,610,024 for the 100 year storm design.
Jackie Lanning then asked for input and discussion on the study areas and if other areas should
be analyzed at this time.
All new construction is required to have 5-year storm sewer sizing and 5 & 100 year detention.
Generally, the streets are designed to convey the 100 year flows into the detention pond within
a development. Design storm philosophy considerations include maintaining consistent design
philosophy throughout the city, the cost of different storm design infrastructure and other
cities’ design standards.
The criteria utilized to rank the projects include complaint basis, number and types of buildings
affected, traffic impacts (street flooding), location within the basin (detention, upstream vs.
downstream), cost and budget, reduced maintenance issues (grass channels) and infrastructure
age/condition.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
116
Council Discussion: It was noted that the study areas are all in the same order. Obtaining a copy of
SDSU’s master plan that includes detention ponds was suggested. It was noted that a “no detention
option” would be piping water out of the city, which could have negative impacts downstream. A “with
detention option” includes the cost of a pond, but not the land acquisition. Some city-owned properties
could be utilized for detention so there wouldn’t be a land cost. Staff also responded to questions
about storms that are other than 5 or 100 year types There’s not a proportional cost correlation on
incremental year increases. It’s exponential.
Questions were raised if certain areas could be addressed with a 5 year solution and others may
require a 100 year solution. Should the City look at specific areas or a policy that covers all areas?
Philosophically, there may be way to address residential verses industrial. However, Lanning said city
staff recommended a citywide approach for criteria development to minimize criticism and liability.
They recommended city-wide criteria with consistent application. Scenarios could include an existing
development storm water retrofit abutting a new development. She said without consistent criteria, the
two areas could have different storm solutions causing flow problems. That is why a prioritization and
weighted criteria process would be essential.
Steve Hogie, Xtra Space Storage, said it’s positive that the City has seen development in his area of
town. He gave specifics on commercial construction that has occurred in recent years in that area but
cited an increase in water problems due to the development. He asked that the City Council continue
to review the storm drainage issue and hoped they would consider a detention pond in that area.
The next steps in the Plan Review Process are as follows:
1) January 27th City Council Meeting: City staff and consultant Troy Thompson will meet with the
City Council to discuss the preliminary ranking results and seek public input.
2) February 2009: Discussion regarding proposed prioritized list and funding.
3) March 2009: Adopt prioritize project list. Discuss next steps for project design and land
acquisition.
4) April 2009: Discuss priority number one project timeline and funding. Budget discussion on
list of current and future year’s funding.
Jeffrey Weldon, City Manager, said careful review of post platting modifications will need to be made.
Changes made by property owners, such as gardens, walls, buildings, etc., could negatively affect the
natural drainage ways. Some of these changes may be beyond what was approved with platting and
subdivision regulations. City officials will need to determine if any were causal factors and adjust the
rankings accordingly. He further noted that none of these locations are identical and will require
specific and individualized approach to solving. He recommended a targeted approach that will solve
the problem rather than worrying about liability.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Resolution No. 113-08 was amended. A motion was made by Bartley,
seconded by Brunner, to approve the agenda, which included:
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action to schedule special City Council Goal Setting Retreat for February
19, 2009.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
117
C. Action on Resolution No. 112-08, a resolution canceling certain checks for
the Brookings Municipal Liquor Store.
Resolution No. 112-08
Uncollectible Checks Removed From Liquor Store Records
WHEREAS, The Brookings Municipal Liquor Store has received a total amount of
$634.50 in insufficient funds and no account checks; and
WHEREAS, these checks and bills have been processed for collection with the States
Attorney and Sheriff’s Office and have been considered uncollectible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the checks totaling $634.50 for the Liquor
Store be determined as uncollectible and removed from the records. Such checks will
be retained by the State’s Attorney Office to support possible subsequent collection of
that debt.
D. Action to approve appointments to various city boards, committees and
commissions. Board of Adjustment – reappoint Matt Kurtenbach, Mike Keating (1st
Alternate), and Jim Pederson (2nd Alternate) (1/1/2009-1/1/2012); Board of Health –
reappoint Karen Cook, Paul Irwin, Pat Lyons and Tricia Matson-Buus (1/1/2009-
1/1/2012); Disabilities Committee – reappoint Lonnie Bayer, Dave Miller, Kurt Cogswell,
Jessie Kuechenmeister, Nancy Hartenhoff-Crooks, Jeff Vostad and Alan Davis (1/1/2009-
1/1/2012); Brookings Health System Board of Trustees – reappoint Keith Corbett
(1/1/2009-1/1/2012); Brookings Transportation Board – reappoint Teresa McKnight
(citizen-at-large), Art Conners (Senior Activity Center), Terrell Spence (Advance), Jerry
Raabe (SD Voc Rehab) and Tyler Luckhurst (SDSU student) (1/1/2009-1/1/2012);
Historic Preservation Commission – reappoint Joanita Kant and Jerry McCollough
(1/1/2009-1/1/2012), appoint Dr. Janet Gritzner (1/1/2009-1/1/2012) *filled vacancy;
Human Rights Committee – reappoint Tricia Wek-Visker (1/1/2009-1/1/2012), appoint
Ryan Howlett and Lawrence Novotny (1/1/2009-1/1/2012), appoint Angela Hatton
(1/1/2008-11/2011) *filled unexpired term; Library Board – reappoint Tami Watson and
Amber Ohm (1/1/2009-1/1/2012); Planning Commission – reappoint Greg Fargen and
John Gustafson (12/31/2008-12/31/2013), appoint Wayne Avery (12/31/2008-
12/31/2013); Swiftel Center Committee – reappoint Tom Coughlin (1/1/2009-1/1/2012);
Traffic Safety Committee – reappoint Keith Bruinsma and Matthew Nelson (12/31/2008-
12/31/2011); Visitor Promotions Committee – reappoint Jerry Miller, Chris Daugaard
and Tyler Luckhurst (1/1/2009-1/1/2012), appoint Matthew Nelson (1/1/2009-1/1/2012).
E. Action on Resolution No. 113-08, a resolution canceling certain outstanding
checks.
Resolution No. 113-08
Canceling Certain Outstanding Checks
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings, has issued checks that have been outstanding for
more than six (6) months;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following amounts be canceled and the
proper funds be credited:
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
118
General Fund
04-18-07 SD Police Chiefs $ 50.00
09-20-07 Virgil Herriott Memorial $100.00
Solid Waste Collections
08-29-07 Advanced Auto Parts $ 7.98
Research & Technology Center
04-18-07 Ekern Plumbing $ 73.48
Total $231.46
F. Action on Resolution No. 114-08, a resolution creating Capital Accumulation
Reserves for Governmental Funds.
Resolution No. 114-08
Creating Capital Accumulation Reserves for Governmental Funds
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has established Governance Policies & Ends Policies,
which defines, protects, and prioritizes the workings of City Government,
AND WHEREAS, Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability, Guideline E requires a (5) five year
capital improvement plan,
AND WHEREAS, Guideline E, requires the (5) five year capital improvement plan is to
be not more than an average of (10) ten percent of the general fund expenditures
including the use of the (25) twenty-five percent 2nd penny sales & use funds,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.1 authorizes municipalities the
accumulation of funds for a period longer than one year for specific capital outlay
purposes otherwise authorized by law,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.2 states such resolution shall be
enacted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body stating clearly the purposes for
which the funds are to be accumulated and the maximum amount that may be
accumulated,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.2 further states the funds
accumulated shall be expended within sixty months from the date of the resolution or if
the specific purposes for which the funds are accumulated are deemed no longer
necessary, these funds shall revert to the general fund,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following capital reserve funds be created
for these governmental funds per the (5) Five Year Capital Improvement Plan:
FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
General Fund 2010 Capital per 5 year capital improvement plan 314,525
General Fund 2009 Innovation Campus Infrastructure Financing 2,000,000
25% Sales & Use Tax 2010 Capital per 5 year capital improvement plan 2,090,374
25% Sales & Use Tax 2006-2010 Accumulation fire truck replacement
(500,000 minus 445,000 2010 truck)
55,000
75% Sales & Use Tax 2010 Capital per 5 year capital improvement plan 395,000
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
119
75% Sales & Use Tax 2009 Innovation Campus Infrastructure Financing 800,000
75% Sales & Use Tax 2007-2010 Accumulated Railroad Crossing 450,000
Industrial Park 2010 Infrastructure Improvements 200,000
Storm Drainage 2010 proposed Storm Sewer Improvement 300,000
Special Assessment 2010 proposed Streets & Sidewalk Improvement 120,000
Any or all resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
G. Action on an Abatement request from Brad Svennes to abate a portion of
the 2008 taxes in the amount of $445.62 for property purchased by the City
over a period of 3 tax years.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 46-08. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 46-08: An
ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area pertaining to an
Agricultural Research Facility as a permitted use in the Agricultural A District. Public Hearing:
January 13, 2009
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 47-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 47-08: An
ordinance for an application for a conditional use to establish a beauty shop (hair salon) on Lot
9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also known as 1108 Telluride Circle. Public Hearing: January
13, 2009
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 45-08: Budget. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by
McClemans, to approve Ordinance No. 45-08: An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance
Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing
For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 115-08: Lease Property. A public hearing was held on Resolution No.
115-08, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person (Advance). A motion
was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to approve Resolution NO. 115-08. A motion to
amend was made by Munsterman, seconded by Brunner, to amend the amount to $1.00 per
year. Discussion: Staff suggested clarification to determine if Federal grant assurances would allow
this reduction. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to table action to January 13,
2009. All present voted YES to TABLE to January 13, 2009.
Draft Final Report for Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study. A presentation of the
Draft Final Report for the Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study for the 34th Avenue Improvement
Project was made by Rick Laughlin of HDR Consultants from Sioux Falls.
This item is Goal #4 from the City Council’s adopted 2008 Strategic Plan and involves
completing the study by the end of the year. The purpose of the study is to analyze options for
upgrade and expansion of 34th Avenue from 6th Street to 20th Street South with an overpass on
the Interstate at 20th Street South and an extension of 20th Street South from 22nd Avenue to
34th Avenue. This transportation improvement would greatly enhance commuter traffic
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
120
connecting residential neighborhoods on the west side of the city to employment centers on
the east while relieving a traffic congestion area at 6th Street.
The study will be designed to apply for future funding through the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP).
Laughlin presented the draft Traffic Impact Study Report. The work tasks conducted as part of
this study include gathering data, analyzing existing operations & identifying problems,
forecasting future traffic, analyzing future traffic conditions, proposing alternative solutions,
comparing/ranking alternatives and creating an implementation plan.
The study proposes six alternative solutions: Alternative 0 – add lanes to existing; Alternative 1
– Eastbrook Drive; Alternative 2 – Orchard Drive; Alternative 3 – 20th Street South;
Alternative 4 – 26th Street South; Alternative 5 – 32nd Street South.
If only 6th Street was improved it would result in unfamiliar street layout (three thru lanes in
each direction, triple left turns, triple right turn lanes, etc.) which is a decision contingency.
Additionally, the Alternative 1 - Eastbrook and Alternative 2 - 8th/Orchard have potential
problems with implementation. Both Alternatives 1 and 2 bring traffic to 22nd Avenue, but
there is no arterial street on the west side of 22nd Avenue. This would lead to more traffic in
residential neighborhoods which is an undesirable outcome.
The alternatives were compared and ranked using the following criteria: safety, environmental,
geometric (continuity and future interchange), traffic service, land use utilities and cost. The
total points the alternatives could receive is 32. The following list describes the alternatives
ranking and cost.
Alternative Points Cost
Alternative 0 – 6th Street 16 $6,490,000
Alternative 1 – Eastbrook Drive 17 $4,160,000
Alternative 2 – Orchard Drive 16 $4,470,000
Alternative 3 – 20th Street 21 $7,010,000
Alternative 4 – 26th Street 15 $5,980,000
Alternative 5 – 32nd Street 18 $5,240,000
The recommended project list includes 34th Avenue from 6th Street to 20th Street South. A two
to three lane arterial street with improved at-grade railroad crossing could be accomplished in
the near term. In the mid-term from 5-10 years an overpass is recommended for construction
from 20th Street South from 22nd Avenue to 34th Avenue with a 2-3 lane arterial street with
grade-separated overpass of Interstate 29.
Council Discussion: Bartley inquired about the mechanics of state and federal funding by adding the
interchange to the 20th Avenue overpass; either later in the review or application process; or as an
additional phase following the construction of the overpass. With the new administration, it appears
there will be more public infrastructure projects and this project will likely probably fare better.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
121
However, we can probably expect funding to be geared mostly to improvements of existing
transportation systems instead of new ones. Can portions of these projects be split?
Laughlin said funding for an overpass will be difficult. The SD Department of Transportation is in a
“maintenance-only” funding mode. In his opinion, funding an overpass would require political muscle
to get into programming. That’s the current financial climate and in the future with a new highway
being built the entire outlook on funding could change. He recommended the City keep informed with
the Federal program and look at ways to meet future needs/ with those changes. As for funding options,
the only thing the City can do now is to get on the State program.
Al Kurtenbach, Daktronics, said he appreciated this study being done and thanked the City and the
County for funding as well as the industrial group. After hearing the results of the study, he think what
those people living and working out on that side of town need is 34th Avenue improved to 32nd Street
South. That would leave one mile of gravel and 2 ½ miles of pavement of each end and it’s not good
gravel. In the near term, he recommended the City look at improving 34th Avenue to 32nd Street
South. He noted that there’s a County blacktop road continuing to the Elkton exit. That would help
traffic and commuting flow using the overpass that exists. Truck traffic could exit at Elkton exit and
continue up 34th to access industrial parks. He’d like to add a 20th Street connector that would extend
across the interstate as a midterm improvement.
Jackie Lanning, City Engineer, said City officials met with east side industry representatives to review
the report and the group asked if an interchange could be built at 20th Street South or would it have to
be at 32nd Street South per Federal spacing regulations. Laughlin thought required minimum spacing
could be achieved between 32nd and 20th.
Lanning also said the group asked if an overpass was built, would that design work into future
interchange or would it have to be reconstructed. Laughlin said to make sure the design is keyed so it
could be converted to interchange in the future.
He further noted that in order to do the study to justify interchange, the City will need to prepare a
traffic forecasting model for the Brookings area which will be another expense added to engineering
costs.
The next step will be to get this project into the State’s “STIP” plan; the deadline is March 2009. City
officials will work with HDR to prepare the application. Getting this report to the State’s Congressional
Delegation was also suggested and keeping a dialogue with the city, county, township and industrial
partners will be key to build support and interest.
Laughlin commented that the SDDOT is also reviving its Interstate Corridor Study and the City of
Brookings should try to get this project included in that analysis.
Action on City Manager’s compensation for 2009. A motion was made by Munsterman,
seconded by Bartley, to increase annual salary for City Manager in 2009 from $103,000 to
$112,000; and increase car allowance for 2009 from $300 per month to $400 per month.
Discussion: The Mayor and Council Members expressed their appreciation to Weldon for a job well
done in 2008 and looked forward to the coming year. All present voted yes; motion carried.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
122
Adjourn. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
123
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on Resolution No. 01-09, a Resolution Creating
And Establishing A Committee For The Purpose Of
Development And Implementation Of Coordinated
Traffic Safety Programs Within The City Of Brookings to
be known and Designated as the City of Brookings Traffic
Safety Committee.
The Traffic Safety Committee was established by the City many years ago, with
Resolution No. 59-03 outlining the most recent update on the purpose and composition
of the committee. When the committee was created, many different interest groups
were identified for representation on the committee. It has become increasingly difficult
to fill two particular categories, which are religion and media. In the media category,
individuals have stated that they feel they have a conflict of interest on this type of
committee due to their professional work reporting City issues and it has also been
difficult to fill the religion category. In addition, the committee has also found it helpful
to have input from the street department, due to snow removal and other street
related functions. We also recommend having the Chief of Police or his/her designee
provide one vote, such as it is now, however, the Chief of Police would be removed
from the ex-officio category. The resolution had not been updated for a number of
years, and some minor language changes were needed to make this resolution
consistent with other City committees.
It is our recommendation that the media category is changed to a Street Department
representative and the religion category be changed into citizen-at-large position. This
will allow more general citizens to become involved in the committee. These
recommendations also allow the final composition of the committee to remain at 13
members. This resolution will make these changes to the Traffic Safety Committee.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
124
Resolution No. 01-09
A Resolution Creating And Establishing A Committee For The Purpose Of
Development And Implementation Of Coordinated Traffic Safety Programs
Within The City Of Brookings To Be Known And Designated As The City Of
Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to provide the
citizens of Brookings with traffic safety programs and services; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that there is a need in the City of Brookings for coordinated
traffic safety programs that will have full public support;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
SECTION 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
There is hereby created and established a committee to be entitled and designated as the
Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
SECTION 2. FUNDING
Funding for the Committee shall be as budgeted by the City Council.
SECTION 3. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE
The committee shall be specifically responsible but not limited to the following:
1) Developing and implementing coordinated traffic safety programs that meet local needs;
2) Acting in an advisory capacity to the City Manager, City Engineer and the City Council
as a whole in the coordination of traffic safety activities of the official agencies and
departments of the City of Brookings;
3) Establishing safety priorities for the City;
4) Reviewing and approving project applications for funding;
5) Serving in a liaison capacity between the City of Brookings and the South Dakota
Highway Safety Program in developing the State Highway Safety Program and in meeting
the National Highway Safety Program Standards;
6) Promoting public acceptance of official programs proposed or instigated by the City;
7) Fostering public knowledge and support of traffic law enforcement and traffic
engineering problems;
8) Cooperating with city schools in promoting educational traffic safety aids; educating the
public in traffic safety; and
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
125
9) Generally aiding the overall reduction of traffic accidents, injuries and deaths on the city
streets.
SECTION 4. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE
a. Manner of appointment, terms. The Brookings Traffic Safety Committee shall be
appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, for three year
terms that commence in January. Members may be appointed for additional terms not
exceeding three years each.
a. b. Membership Composition. The Committee shall consist of official and non-official 13
voting members, representing the following who shall be appointed with due regard to
representation from the following areas:
1. Brookings Chief of Police (ex-officio member) or his/her designee
2. Chamber of Commerce Representative
3. Police Officer (Appointed by Police Chief)
4. City Engineer or his/her designee
5. SDSU Chief of Security or his/her designee
6. School Superintendent or his/her designee
7. Media Street Superintendent or his/her designee
8. Automobile Insurance Representative
9. Religion Citizen at Large
10. Senior Citizen Representative
11. Industry Representative
12. Jogger/Bicyclist Representative
13. Citizen at Large
14. Citizen at Large
c. b. Ex-officio Members: The Police Chief shall serve as ex-officio members without vote.
The Committee is hereby authorized to appoint as ex-officio members of said
Committee any additional persons without voting privileges by majority vote of the
Committee at any meeting where a quorum is present.
d. Vacancies: If a vacancy occurs prior to the expiration of a term, the vacancy may be
filled by appointment for a term not exceeding three years, which term shall expire on
December 31st.
e. Residency. The majority of the members shall be residents of the city.
f. d. Secretary: The chairperson of the committee shall appoint the secretary of said
committee. It shall be the duty of the secretary to send all notices for the meetings
of said committee; keep and preserve the minutes; have custody and keep all
documents and papers filed with said committee; advise and consult with the City
Council and city officials as to the work and recommendations of said
committee;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
126
work with said committee and its subcommittees; work with organized
community groups and others to carry forward all plans and policies of the
committee as to accident prevention, which may be approved by the committee;
and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by said committee.
g. c. Elected Officers: The Traffic Safety Committee shall, each January in odd numbered
years, annually elect from its members a chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve a
The term of office shall be one year. The term of office shall be two (2) years. The
Committee may designate from among its membership such other officers and
subcommittees as it may deem appropriate and necessary.
h. e. Meetings: The Committee shall regularly hold meetings as such times and places as it
shall determine.once a month and. It may also meet on the call of the chairperson or
on call by a majority of its members.
g. f. Quorum: Seven members shall constitute a quorum. The majority of the members of
the Brookings Traffic Safety Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
its business.
SECTION 5. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Resolution No. 59-03 dated October 14, 2003 is hereby repealed.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
___________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
127
Resolution No. 01-09
A Resolution Creating And Establishing A Committee
For The Purpose Of Development And Implementation
Of Coordinated Traffic Safety Programs Within The City
Of Brookings To Be Known And Designated As The City
Of Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to provide the
citizens of Brookings with traffic safety programs and services; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that there is a need in the City of Brookings for coordinated
traffic safety programs that will have full public support;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
SECTION 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
There is hereby created and established a committee to be entitled and designated as the
Brookings Traffic Safety Committee.
SECTION 2. FUNDING
Funding for the Committee shall be as budgeted by the City Council.
SECTION 3. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE
The committee shall be specifically responsible but not limited to the following:
1) Developing and implementing coordinated traffic safety programs that meet local needs;
2) Acting in an advisory capacity to the City Manager, City Engineer and the City Council
as a whole in the coordination of traffic safety activities of the official agencies and
departments of the City of Brookings;
3) Establishing safety priorities for the City;
4) Reviewing and approving project applications for funding;
5) Serving in a liaison capacity between the City of Brookings and the South Dakota
Highway Safety Program in developing the State Highway Safety Program and in meeting
the National Highway Safety Program Standards;
6) Promoting public acceptance of official programs proposed or instigated by the City;
7) Fostering public knowledge and support of traffic law enforcement and traffic
engineering problems;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
128
8) Cooperating with city schools in promoting educational traffic safety aids; educating the
public in traffic safety; and
9) Generally aiding the overall reduction of traffic accidents, injuries and deaths on the city
streets.
SECTION 4. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE
a. Manner of appointment, terms. The Brookings Traffic Safety Committee shall be
appointed by the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, for three year
terms that commence in January. Members may be appointed for additional terms not
exceeding three years each.
a. b. Membership Composition. The Committee shall consist of 13 voting members, who
shall be appointed with due regard to representation from the following areas:
15. Brookings Chief of Police or his/her designee
16. Chamber of Commerce Representative
17. City Engineer or his/her designee
18. SDSU Chief of Security or his/her designee
19. School Superintendent or his/her designee
20. Street Superintendent or his/her designee
21. Automobile Insurance Representative
22. Citizen at Large
23. Senior Citizen Representative
24. Industry Representative
25. Jogger/Bicyclist Representative
26. Citizen at Large
27. Citizen at Large
c. The Committee is hereby authorized to appoint as ex-officio members of said
Committee any additional persons without voting privileges by majority vote of the
Committee at any meeting where a quorum is present.
d. Vacancies: If a vacancy occurs prior to the expiration of a term, the vacancy may be
filled by appointment for a term not exceeding three years, which term shall expire on
December 31st.
e. Residency. The majority of the members shall be residents of the city.
f. Elected Officers: The Traffic Safety Committee shall annually elect from its members a
chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve a term of one year. The Committee may
designate from among its membership such other officers and subcommittees as it may
deem appropriate and necessary.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
129
g. Meetings: The Committee shall regularly hold meetings as such times and places as it
shall determine. It may also meet on the call of the chairperson or on call by a majority
of its members.
h. Quorum: The majority of the members of the Brookings Traffic Safety Committee shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of its business.
SECTION 5. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Resolution No. 59-03 dated October 14, 2003 is hereby repealed.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
130
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action to renew a joint City / School Facility Agreement.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Joint City/School Facility Agreement
Attached is a new agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings Public
Schools governing the shared-use of joint facilities. As you know, we have a long-
standing partnership for joint use of indoor and outdoor recreational and athletic
facilities. The new document basically codifies and re-commits to writing what is
current practice and there is little by way of material change to that current practice.
The fact our “current” agreement is dated 1966 (that’s not a typo!), indicates the
agreement needs to be updated. Certainly, the facilities, needs and uses of the City and
School District have changed over the years and the agreement needs to reflect that.
The School District is scheduled to consider adoption of this agreement at their meeting
on January 12. Barring any concerns, modifications, or amendments they may have at
that time, I would anticipate their approval of the document as presented here.
However, if there are changes, I will inform you of them at the council meeting.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
139
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action on Resolution No. 02-09, a resolution authorizing
Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for Brookings Regional
Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements Project
AIP #3-46-0005-019-2006 with Brookings Electric
Construction, Inc.
The City Council approved Resolution 58-07 on August 28, 2007, Resolution Authorizing
Mayor to Sign an Agreement for Federal Aviation Administration Grant No. 3-46-0005-
19-2006. FAA granted the City discretionary funding to construct an asphalt porous
friction course overlay for Runway 12/30, the main runway, which was completed in
2007. This grant was also approved the design and construction of Miscellaneous
Electrical Improvements for the airport, which entailed a new supplemental lighted wind
cone, new taxiway retro-reflective edge markers, relocating the existing REIL system,
modifying existing guidance signs for constant brightness, and raising existing flush
mounted runway light fixtures. The work includes all equipment, conduit, wiring,
connections, trenching, restoration, etc. as required for a complete installation. This
work addressed the electrical improvements that were recently identified by the FAA
Certification Officer as required improvements. This project was awarded by the City
Council to Brookings Electric Construction, Inc. of Bushnell, SD in November 2007 with a
May 16, 2008 completion date.
This change order includes the additional cost of $5,156.20 for the addition of two new
items to the project work which were:
• Remove & dispose of extra depth pavement at inset lights: This item was
required due to exceptionally deep asphalt that was unforeseeable, in the area of
the inset lights, that had to be saw cut and removed.
• Constant brightness modifications to supplemental wind cone: This item was
required to meet the new certification standards for constant brightness of the
supplemental wind cone.
The contractor worked on the project throughout 2008, and encountered delays
related to the supplemental wind cone equipment. It took a lengthy amount of time to
receive approval for the type of wind cone that would output a constant brightness to
meet FAA standards. The wind cone was ultimately approved, installed by the
contractor, and the project was completed by December 15, 2008. The delay to the
project was 213 calendar days and was at no fault of the contractor. This project is
eligible for reimbursement and will be paid at 95% FAA, 2% State, and 3% City.
This change order (CCO1 Final) will authorize additional inset light work and
supplemental wind cone work and extend the contract deadline by 213 calendar days to
final out the project.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
140
Resolution No. 02-09
A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For
Airport Miscellaneous Electrical Improvement Project
AIP# 3-46-0005-019-2006
Brookings Electric Construction, Inc., Bushnell, SD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for Airport
Miscellaneous Electrical Improvement Project AIP# 3-46-0005-019-2006:
Construction Change Order Number 1 Final (CCO#1 Final):
Adjust contract price for the work to remove & dispose of extra depth pavement at inset lights
and for constant brightness modifications to supplemental wind cone for a total increase of
$5,145.52 to final out the project.
Adjust completion date by 213 calendar days.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
141
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action on Resolution No. 03-09, a resolution authorizing
Change Order (CCO#1) for 2008-02STA 15th Street
South, Christine Ave. and Camelot Drive Street
Assessment Project with Winter Brothers Underground,
Inc.
The 2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Assessment
Project entails water main, sanitary sewer main, grading, gravel and curb & gutter. This
project was bid in 2008, and is not yet complete.
This project progressed during 2008, however, wetlands were identified in the Camelot
Drive right-of-way in late July. The City applied for a permit with the DENR and was
required to submit a mitigation plan for the affected wetlands. The permit process
delayed the project since work was suspended on Camelot Drive from late July to
September 30th when the City ultimately received approval from DENR. Work
resumed in October 2008, however, weather delays hindered the final gravel work and
installation of curb & gutter. It is anticipated that the final work will be completed as
soon as weather permits in the spring of 2009.
This change order will authorize work for two storm sewer changes. One 3’x5’ Sioux
Falls inlet required adjustment of the wall height due to a change in curb and gutter
grades. A new 3’x5’ storm sewer junction box was also added to the project by request
of an abutting property owner, and the cost of this inlet will be included in their
assessment. This change order will increase the project cost by $3,700.00.
Original Contract Price: $493,000.00
Change from previously approved Change Orders: $0.00
Contract price prior to this Change Order: $493,000.00
Increase of this Change Order (CCO1): $3,700.00
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $496,700.00
This resolution will approve Change Order No. 1 for an increase of $3,700.00 to the
contract.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
142
Resolution No. 03-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order (CCO#1) For
2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Assessment
Project
Winter Brothers Underground, Inc., Sioux Falls, Brookings, SD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Assessment Project:
Construction Change Order Number 1:
Adjust contract price for work to modify a 3’x5’ Sioux Falls inlet and to install a 3’x5’ storm
sewer Junction Box including manhole lid and casting for a total increase of $3,700.00.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
143
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 REPORT.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
144
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a
conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on Lot
1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Applicant: Todd Bakken
Proposal: Establish a two-family dwelling in a low-density residential district
Background: This subdivision was designed to accommodate one and two-family
dwellings along the west side of Bluegill Avenue (R-2 District). This created a transition
between the soccer fields and the planned low-density residential east of Bluegill
Avenue. All the buildings that have been constructed in the R-2 District are either
duplexes or twinhomes. The homes east of Bluegill Avenue are single-family dwellings.
Specifics: A permit for a single-family home was issued in 2007. A conversion to a two-
family dwelling in the Residence R-1B District requires compliance with the following:
o A minimum lot area of 12,400 square feet
o A minimum frontage width of 90 feet
o A minimum of four (4) on-premise parking spaces
In addition, a primary focus for approval of a conditional use is the potential
impact on adjacent properties. The Commission has the power to attach reasonable
conditions to insure that any negative impacts are lessened or eliminated.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 0 yes and 7 no to recommend that
this conditional use request not be approved.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation:
Concur with Planning Commission’s Recommendation to Deny
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
145
Ordinance No. 43-08
An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for a two-family
dwelling in the Residence R-1B District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for a two-family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition
with the following conditions:
None
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 9, 2008
SECOND READING: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
150
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 7, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on November 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber
at City Hall. Members present were Curt Ness, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron,
David Kurtz, Al Heuton, Al Gregg and Fargen. Larry Fjeldos and Stacy Howlett
were absent. Also present were Todd Bakken, Crystal Sik, and City Planner Dan
Hanson.
Item #4 – Todd Bakken has submitted an application for a conditional use to
approve a two-family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition.
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve the conditional use. All present
voted no. MOTION FAILED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #4 – Bakken stated he purchased the lot before all the twinhomes were
built on the west side of Bluegill Avenue. He noted that house sales had slowed
so he wanted to convert the house to a two-family dwelling in the future.
Crystal Sik, 1509 22nd Street South, stated that parking was an issue in their
neighborhood due to the existing duplexes. She felt more duplexes would only
create more problems. She submitted statements from three (3) other neighbors
opposing the application.
Heuton was concerned that approval of the application could impact
parking congestion in the neighborhood and set precedence for other higher
density developments. Kurtz felt there were other available lots in the
community zoned for two-family dwellings. Cameron noted that the transition
zoning was coordinated between the city and the developer when the
development was planned, and therefore should stay as proposed.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
151
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the west
338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-T110N-
R50W, except the south 92 feet thereof, from an
Agricultural a District to a Residence R-1A District.
Applicant: Michael and Vicky Clites
Proposal: Rezone 9½ acres for residential use
Background: This acreage is currently undeveloped except for a horse barn that was
constructed a few years ago along the east side about 500 feet south of West 8th Street
South. There are two corrals south of the building. Two residences abut this tract along
the east side. One residence has about three acres of land, and the other has several
outbuildings on approximately 40 acres. These properties separate the subject parcel
from the current city limits.
Specifics: The parcel is a linear strip of land abutting West 16th Avenue South. Rezoning
the land to the requested residential district would permit a developer to establish
about 3 units per acre maximum density. However, actual density would likely be less
than 50% of the maximum.
I have attached excerpts from the Vision 2020 Plan that relate to proposals such as
these. Please refer to the various pages to read the guidelines in place for new
developments. Keep in mind that annexation is not an option since the land is not
contiguous to the current city limits.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of this rezoning.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
152
Ordinance No. 44-08
AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING WITHIN THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS:
BE IT ORDAINED BY 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, to-wit:
the West 338 feet of the N1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the
South 92 feet thereof
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from a class Agricultural A District to a class
Residence R-1A District.
In accordance with Section 800 of Article VIII of Appendix C of the Joint Jurisdiction
Area Zoning Ordinance, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III
and IV, of Ordinance No. 14-80.
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. 14-80.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 9, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
156
Joint City/County
Planning Commissions
November 4, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
County Chairperson Duane Knutson called the Joint City/County Planning
Commission meeting to order on November 4, 2008, at 8:00 PM in the Daktronics
Room at the Swiftel Center. County planners present were Jeff Robbins, Darrel
Kleinjan, Darrell Nelson, Robert Rochel, Mary Kidwiler, and Knutson. Emil
Klavetter, Randy Jensen, and Robb Loomis were absent. City planners present
were Curt Ness, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, Al Heuton, Al
Gregg and Fargen. Larry Fjeldos and Stacy Howlett were absent. Others present
were County Zoning Officer Bob Hill, Mike Clites, City Planner Dan Hanson, and
others.
Item #2 – Mike and Vicky Clites have submitted a petition to rezone the west 338
feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the south 92 feet
thereof, from a class Agricultural A District to a class Residence R-1A District.
(Robbins/Kidwiler) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
(Cameron/Gregg) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #2 – Mike Clites stated he had owned about 80 acres of land many years
ago in this area. He eventually sold the land but recently repurchased 9½ acres.
His plan was to build one house on the acreage and continue to raise horses. He
noted that other homes were nearby, and water and sewer services were
available.
Kurtz commented that similar zoning was present along 8th Street South.
He felt an extension of the zoning in the area was appropriate. Cameron and
Rochel concurred.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
157
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
9. Ordinance No. 46-08: An ordinance amending the zoning
ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area pertaining to an
Agricultural Research Facility as a permitted use in the
Agricultural A District.
Proposal: Adopt regulations for a new land use in the Agricultural A District
Background: All amendments to the Joint Jurisdiction Area zoning ordinance must be
approved by both the city and county. Each district has permitted uses and special
exceptions (conditional uses).
The current make-up of permitted uses in the Ag District involves typical agriculture
activities and farmsteads. It also allows for certain commercial activities that are
considered customary for rural areas such as fisheries services, tree farms, truck
gardening, nurseries, and greenhouses.
Specifics: This amendment modifies two areas, definitions and districts. The definition is
important since it sets parameters as to what we perceive this use to be. The agronomy
distinction narrows the uses to less intensive operations. The last statement makes sure
that “research” would not be interpreted to include something other than field crops
and soils.
Recommendation: The City Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no and the County
Planning Commission voted 8 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the amendments.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
158
ORDINANCE NO. 46-08
An ordinance revising the Zoning Ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area surrounding
the City of Brookings pertaining to an Agriculture Research Facility in the Agricultural A
District
Be it ordained by the City of Brookings, South Dakota that Articles II and IV of
Ordinance 14-80 be amended to read as follows, to wit:
Article II. Section 200. Word Definitions
Definitions
Ag Research Facility – a building where experimentation is undertaken for the collection
of information association with agronomy (Field crop production and soil management).
This term does not include any animal research.
Article IV. Agricultural, Residential, Floodplain and Aquifer Districts
Section 404 Aquifer District
Section 407 Permitted uses
Section 407.7 Ag Research Facility
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 16, 2008
SECOND READING: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
___________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
159
NOTICE OF HEARING
UPON A CHANGE IN ZONE REGULATIONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of
the Joint Jurisdiction Area surrounding the City of Brookings have been
proposed pertaining to an Agricultural Research facility in the Agricultural A
District.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN That said changes will be acted on by the City
and County Planning Commissions at 8:00 PM on Tuesday, December 2, 2008, in
the Council Chamber in the lower level of City Hall, Brookings, South Dakota.
Any action taken by the City and County Planning Commissions is a
recommendation to the City Council and County Commission.
Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2008.
_________________________________
City Planner
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
160
Joint City/County
Planning Commissions
December 2, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
City Vice-chairperson John Gustafson called the Joint City/County
Planning Commission meeting to order on December 2, 2008 at 8:00 PM in the
Council Chamber at City Hall. County planners present were Duane Knutson,
Jeff Robbins, Darrel Kleinjan, Darrell Nelson, Robert Rochel, Mary Kidwiler, Robb
Loomis, and Emil Klavetter. Randy Jensen was absent. City planners present
were Curt Ness, Al Heuton, Stacey Howlett, Larry Fjeldos, Al Gregg and
Gustafson. Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, and Greg Fargen were absent. Also
present were County Zoning Director Bob Hill, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, City
Planner Dan Hanson, Airport Manager Mike Wilson, City Manager Jeff Weldon,
Andy Olson and Greg Albjerg from HNTB, Bob Babcock from Helms & Assoc.,
and others.
Item #2 – Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area
have been submitted pertaining to an Agricultural Research Facility in the
Agricultural A District.
(Gregg/Ness) Motion to approve. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #2 – Hanson explained the two sections that were amended in the Joint
Jurisdiction Area zoning ordinance. Article II included the definition of the term.
The allowed research would be limited to agronomy which was generally
associated with field crop production and soil management. Therefore, a
permitted facility would engage in seed, plant, or soil research only. Article IV
allowed the use in the Aquifer Overlay District as well as the Ag District.
Heuton asked if the use could be considered as a special exception.
Hanson replied that, based on the established permitted uses and special
exception uses, it fit better as a permitted use in the Ag District.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
161
JJA Zoning Regulations (excerpt)
The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve the water quality of the Big Sioux Aquifer within
the Joint Jurisdictional Area, protecting the development and use of land in a manner that will
positively affect the quality of water within the areas designated Aquifer Secondary Impact
Areas, and preventing any use that would affect the water quality within the Aquifer Critical
Impact Areas associated with the public wells that supply the City of Brookings.
The Brookings City and County Commissions recognize (1) that residents of Brookings County
rely exclusively on ground water for a safe drinking water supply and (2) that certain land uses
in Brookings County can contaminate ground water particularly in shallow/surficial aquifers.
The purpose of the Aquifer Protection Overlay District is to protect public health and safety by
minimizing contamination of the shallow/surficial aquifers in the Joint Jurisdictional Area. It is
the intent to accomplish this, as much as possible, by public education and securing public
cooperation.
Appropriate land use regulations will be imposed, however, which are in addition to those
imposed in the underlying zoning districts or in other regulations. It is not the intent to
grandfather in existing land uses which pose a serious threat to public health through potential
contamination of public water supply well head areas.
.2 ESTABLISHMENT AND DELINEATION OF AQUIFER PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONES.
Boundaries for the aquifer protection zones for the Aquifer Protection Overlay District are
shown on published maps entitled "Well Head Protection Area Maps, Brookings County
Shallow Aquifer Map" dated May 1988 as drawn by Banner Associates. Sheets 3 and 4 of said
maps are hereby adopted by reference as part of this ordinance as if the maps were fully
described herein.
The shallow/surficial aquifer boundary was mapped using data from the South Dakota
Geological Survey and United States Geological Survey. The zone of contribution was mapped
using an analytical technique outlined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication
"Guidelines for Delineation of Well head Protection Areas, June, 1987." The Aquifer Protection
Overlay District was divided into two zones
a) Zone A - Aquifer Critical Impact Zone.
Zone A, the well head protection area, is the zone of contribution mapped around all
public water supply wells or well fields and includes land upgradient to the ten year time
of travel boundary.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
162
(1) Permitted uses in Zone A, provided they meet appropriate Performance
Standards outlined for Aquifer Protection Overlay Zones:
a) Agriculture;
b) Horticulture;
c) Park, greenways or publicly owned recreational areas;
Necessary public utilities/facilities designed so as to prevent contamination of ground water.
Section 405. Agricultural District A.
406. Intent. This district is established to maintain and promote farming and related activities
within an environment which is generally free of other land use activities. Residential
development will be discouraged to minimize conflicts with farming activities and reduce
the demand for expanded public services and facilities.
407. Permitted uses.
.1 Agricultural activities and farm related buildings, excluding feedlots
.2 Farm dwelling
.3 Single-family residences on less than 35 acre lots provided that such residences are
on an established farm building site, abandoned school site, and further provided
that the proposed site has established road access, the lot has clearly delineated
boundaries and the site can meet minimum water and sewer standards
.4 Fisheries services and game propagation areas
.5 Orchards, tree farms, truck gardening, nurseries and greenhouses
.6 Public parks and recreation areas
408. Uses allowed as special exception by the Board of Adjustment.
.1 Airports and airstrips
.2 Church or cemetery
.3 Golf course, golf driving range
.4 Sand, gravel or quarry operation, mineral exploration and extraction
.5 Rock crushers, concrete and asphalt mixing plants
.6 Sanitary landfills provided;
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
163
a) The site meets the requirements of the State Department of Water and Natural
Resources
b) A site plan is provided indicating the following information:
.1) Present topography, soil types, depth to groundwater
.2) Location of existing water drainage, existing buildings, existing shelterbelts.
.3) Identification of roads leading to the site
.4) Proposed changes at the site such as new shelterbelts, new buildings, changes
in topography, new fence lines
.5) Proposed monitoring wells, etc..
c) A minimum of one thousand (1,000) feet from the landfill property line to the
nearest residence; excluding the residence of the landfill operator.
.7 Institution farms, including religious farming communities
.8 Sewage treatment plants
.9 Livestock feedlots, poultry and fur farms, but not within one (1) mile of any
incorporated municipality and within one thousand three hundred twenty (1,320)
feet of any established residences and three hundred thirty (330) feet of a Federal,
State, County, or Township highway
.10 Stables
.11 Veterinary clinics
.12 Water pumping stations, elevated tanks and similar essential public utilities and
service structures
.13 One mobile home, on an established farmstead to be used for the occupancy of a
farm employee, or by parents, grandparents, children, brothers and sisters of the
occupant of the land, provided that said mobile home is removed within ninety
(90) days of the vacation therefrom by the qualified occupant or occupants (Ord.
07-03, 3-23-93)
.14 Caretakers residence in conjunction with a public or quasi public use
.15 Radio and TV Towers
.16 Public structures erected by any governmental agency providing that such
structure is essential to serve the adjacent neighborhood, that it cannot be located
in any other type of district, that it has adequate screening and landscaping where
applicable, that it is housed in buildings that harmonize with the character of the
neighborhood (Ord. 17-89, 10-10-89)
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
164
Second Readings & Public Hearings
10. Ordinance No. 47-08: An ordinance for an application for
a conditional use to establish a beauty shop (hair salon)
on Lot 9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also known as
1108 Telluride Circle.
Applicant: Nicole Binker
Proposal: Establish a major home occupation in a low-density residential district
Background: Major home occupations must comply with 14 criteria listed in the zoning
ordinance. This list is enclosed for your review.
The house on this lot was built this year. It has two (2) levels with a walkout in the back.
It also has an attached triple stall garage.
Specific: The hair salon would be located in the lower level and occupy about 25% of
the basement. The entrance to the salon would be from a stairway inside of the garage.
Customers would be able to park on the driveway.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval subject to the condition listed in the ordinance.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
165
Ordinance No. 47-08
An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for a major home
occupation (beauty shop) in the Residence R-1B District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for a major home occupation (beauty shop) on Lot 9, Block
3, Timberline Addition with the following conditions:
Approval subject to a sign with a maximum size of four (4) square feet and attached to
the wall of the garage.
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 16, 2008
SECOND READING: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
170
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
December 2, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Vice-chairperson John Gustafson called the regular meeting of the City
Planning Commission to order on December 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council
Chamber at City Hall. Members present were Curt Ness, Al Heuton, Al Gregg,
Larry Fjeldos, Stacy Howlett, and Gustafson. Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, and
Greg Fargen were absent. Also present were Nicole Binker, Teresa McKnight,
City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #4 - Nicole Binker has submitted an application for a Conditional Use on
the following described real estate: Lot 9, Block 3, Timberline Addition, also
known as 1108 Telluride Circle.
(Howlett/Ness) Motion to approve the conditional use.
(Heuton/Fjeldos) Amendment to the motion to add ‘subject to a
maximum of four (4) square feet for a sign with the sign attached to the wall of
the garage. All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED.
The motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #4 – Nicole Binker stated that her salon would be in the basement of the
house and would have no more than two chairs. Heuton asked for the hours of
operation. Binker replied Monday 2:00 PM – 7:00 PM, Tuesday 11:00 AM – 7:00
PM, Wednesday noon – 8:00 PM, Thursday and Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM and
Saturday 8:00 AM – 2:00 PM. Gustafson asked about signage on the property for
the home occupation. Hanson remarked that six (6) square feet of signage was
permissible. Binker stated that she planned to put a wall sign over the garage
door entrance. Heuton favored a smaller size with a restriction on its location.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
171
Other Business
11. TABLED: Resolution No. 115-08, a Resolution of Intent
to Lease Real Property to Private Person (Advance).
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
City Engineer Jackie Lanning
Airport Manager Mike Wilson
RE: Lease renewal for ADVANCE at the airport
Pursuant to previous action by the City Council, the ground lease renewal with
ADVANCE for a portion of the airport property was tabled pending further
investigation of any applicable FAA requirements governing ground leases. The original
proposal was to have the same rate for the lease as in effect with private hangar tenants.
It was suggested that the ADVANCE rate could be adjusted to $1 per year in
recognition of this organization’s mission.
Staff has researched this question and found the answer in the grant assurances
provisions of our funding contracts. Grant assurances are requirements we are bound
to as a condition of accepting federal funding for airport projects. That language is as
follows:
24. Fee and Rental Structure. It will maintain a fee and rental structure for facilities and
services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the
circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking into account such factors as the volume
of traffic and economy of collection. No part of the Federal share of an airport development,
airport planning or noise compatibility project for which a grant is made under Title 49, United
States Code, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Federal Airport Act or the
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 shall be included in the rate basis in establishing
fees, rates, and charges for users of that airport.
Based on the first sentence of this provision, as it pertains to striving toward a policy
goal of making the airport self-sufficient through revenue streams, staff interprets a rate
of $1 per year to be a material breach of this provision. As such, we recommend the
original rate of 11 cents per square foot as the same as other tenants.
Action(s):
Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action on amendment, request public comment, roll call
Action on main motion as amended, request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve Original Lease Language
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
172
RESOLUTION NO. 115-08
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO LEASE REAL PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
that the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Lease with Advance for a period of two (2)
years, commencing on January 1, 2009 and ending January 1, 2011 and pertaining to the
following described property:
The designated parking lot of approximately 15,300 square feet in size, located on
Brookings Airport property and adjacent to Division Avenue, in Section 27, T110N,
R50W in the City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota.
The Lease will be an amount of One Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty Three Dollars
($1,683.00) for 2009, which is $0.11 per square foot, payable by the last working day of January,
2009. The lease amount may be adjusted by the Brookings City Council for 2010, which will be
payable by the last working day of January, 2010. The City of Brookings may terminate this
Lease with a notice of 60 days to the lessee.
BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on
December 16, 2008 at 6:00 o’clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons
were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property.
Passed and approved this 16th day of December 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
____________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
173
Other Business:
12. Action on City of Brookings “Guidelines for the use of
Tax Increment Finance.”
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Guidelines for use of Tax Increment Finance
Attached is the proposed document prescribing the use of tax increment finance for the
City of Brookings. Previously, I referred to it as a “Policy”. I have changed it to
“Guidelines” because of the substantial latitude that is available in determining the
specifics of each tax increment application that comes before you.
As mentioned in previous work sessions where this item was discussed, each application
needs a series of hearings before the Planning Commission and approvals from the City
Council. Depending upon the specifics of the application, we will be able to consider a
project plan and development agreement that can be customized to our project goals
with some flexibility instead of an inflexible policy which must be adhered to unless and
until the policy is changed.
I have deleted the item addressing with minimum increment generated since you will be
able to set that with each application. Other than those changes, the document remains
as you have seen it before.
Staff recommends final approval of this document.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
174
Guidelines for the Use of
Tax Increment Finance
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Purpose of these Guidelines:
These guidelines are established to outline the City’s position governing the intended use of tax
increment financing (TIF) as an economic development tool for development. These guidelines
operate within the parameters of SDCL 11-9 as amended; and shall be used as a procedural
framework for considering applications for its use. The fundamental purpose of tax increment
financing in Brookings is to encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not
otherwise occur but for the assistance provided through TIF. It shall further be the intent of TIF
use to be for the shortest duration possible to achieve the City’s desired results for the specific
project. The City reserves the right to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis,
taking into consideration established policies, project criteria, existing ordinances, and demand
on city services in relation to the potential benefits from the project. Meeting the criteria does
not guarantee the award of TIF to the project. Approval or denial of one project is not
intended to set precedent for approval or denial of another project. Each project is unique
and must stand on its own merits.
Section I: Objectives governing the use of TIF
The City will consider using TIF to assist private and public development projects provided
Item (8) in this Section and one additional of the following public purpose objectives are
satisfied.
1) To retain local jobs and/or increase the number and diversity of jobs that offer stable
employment and/or attractive wages and benefits. These jobs should be at the level
sufficient to being considered a living wage/head-of-household income, and be
considered primary jobs.
2) To encourage the redevelopment of deteriorated, contaminated, designated
“brownfield”, or otherwise blighted real property through the investment of TIF
funding; to result in an appreciably higher level of quality redevelopment and private
reinvestment.
3) To stimulate economic development in Brookings by assisting projects that promote the
long term economic vitality of the community; and contributes to the fulfillment of the
City’s development or redevelopment objectives.
4) To stimulate increased private investment in areas that would have otherwise remained
undeveloped or under-developed and which will, in the long term, provide a significant
source of additional tax revenues to all taxing jurisdictions.
5) To encourage additional unsubsidized private development in the area, either directly or
indirectly through “spin-off” development.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
175
6) To stimulate the construction of safe and affordable housing units for low and moderate
income residents and expand the general housing stock. (The latest available housing
plan/survey, and information from South Dakota Housing Development Authority
should be used as the primary guideline for determining affordability levels.)
7) To offset increased costs of redevelopment over and above the costs normally incurred
in development.
8) To facilitate the development process and to achieve development on sites which would
not otherwise be developed BUT FOR the use of TIF. Use of TIF shall be considered a
financing means of last resort as determined by the City Council.
9) To support and assist in the implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
10) To broaden and expand the tax base to the benefit of all taxing jurisdictions.
11) To support redevelopment efforts that enhance and preserve unique urban features
including but not limited to the downtown central business district, historic districts,
entryway features and amenities, and public assembly areas.
12) To the extent permitted by law, tax increment proceeds may be used to finance eligible
city-owned projects and improvements within the district as deemed necessary by the
City Council.
Section II: General guidelines governing the use of TIF
1) The City of Brookings will comply with all requirements of SDCL 11-9 as amended.
The City will undertake a comprehensive analysis to ensure the proposed project
satisfies the “BUT FOR” criteria. The project must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City Council, that it is not economically feasible without the use of TIF.
2) The City of Brookings will use tax increment financing only when a clearly identified
city development objective is served and only to the degree necessary to accomplish
that development objective.
3) Tax increment financing will only be used in cases where the City has the financial
capacity to provide the needed public assistance, the Council deems it fiscally
prudent to provide such assistance, and the developer can clearly demonstrate the
development will be able to meet it’s financial and public purpose obligation.
4) The financing method of TIF districts shall be a “pay-as-you-go” method whereby the
applicant fronts the costs and will be reimbursed by the City over time as increment
becomes available. The developer shall be considered the borrower under ‘pay-as-
you-go” and the City shall not be liable for debt. As an alternative, the City Council
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
176
may consider the issuance of bonded indebtedness through tax increment bonds
only when unique circumstances determine “pay-as-you-go” is not feasible.
5) As a condition of using TIF, applicants agree to waive their right to use the
discretionary formula. The discretionary formula provides a financial incentive in
addition to the use of tax increment. Using the discretionary formula lessens the
availability of increment needed to finance the project.
6) Only those public improvements and redevelopment costs directly associated with,
or needed to service the proposed development plan or project, should be financed
through tax increment proceeds.
7) The amount of increment remitted to the developer shall not exceed the amount in
the approved project plan as adopted by the City Council; and shall be only for the
lesser of either actual or budgeted expenditures in the approved plan.
8) The duration of the tax increment district shall be determined in the approved
project plan as adopted by the City and shall terminate at such time as the sufficient
increment has been generated pursuant to the approved project plan. In the event
sufficient increment has not been generated by the time of the scheduled
decertification of the district, the developer shall be responsible for any shortfall.
9) Tax increment expenditures shall only be made for items directly related to, and
ancillary to, a bona fide public purpose or public benefit as determined exclusively by
the City Council.
10) The City shall advertise for competitive bids for construction of the project, shall
hold the construction contract, and shall make payments to the contractor with
reimbursements from the applicant for pay-as-you-go projects, or from the bond fund
for bonded indebtedness funds. The City shall not make any payments to the
contractor until the applicant has made sufficient deposits to the City to cover the
contractor payments for pay-as-you-go projects.
11) All development proposals should seek to maximize the amount of private
investment per dollar of public assistance. Public assistance as a percentage of total
development costs will be determined for each project as part of the review and
compared to other development projects or subprojects of similar scope and
magnitude whenever possible.
12) The City may, on a case-by-case basis, establish public purpose requirements specific
to an application that must be met for the project. Such requirements shall be
described in the project plan, development agreement, or other binding document
between the City and the applicant, which may be in addition to the scope of
applicable city ordinances or policies. Such items which may be included and if
included would require performance by the Applicant may include but are not
limited to: prescribed valuation of a home or building, acreage or building sizes,
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
177
wages, number of jobs created/retained, building materials affecting appearance,
landscaping, signage, property valuation increases, sales tax generating capacity,
historic preservation, environmental improvements, transportation improvements,
blight remediation, parking improvements, etc.
13) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that sufficient market
demand exists for the proposed project. TIF shall not be used to support
speculative projects.
14) Applicant must provide adequate financial guarantees to constitute a minimum of 10
percent equity investment cash infusion by Applicant into the overall project.
Private lender financing and TIF shall not be counted toward the 10 percent equity
requirement.
15) Applicant must provide adequate financial and legal guarantees to ensure completion
of the project, including, but not limited to letters of credit, performance bonds, and
personal guarantees.
16) For the purposes of underwriting the proposal, the applicant shall provide any
requested market, financial, environmental, or other data pertaining to the proposed
TIF project requested by the City or its consultants.
17) The project must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations, Land Use Plan, and any other duly-adopted
master plans affected by the use of Tax Increment Financing.
18) The applicant shall adequately demonstrate, to the City’s sole satisfaction, an ability
to complete the proposed project based on past development experience, general
reputation, and credit history, among other factors, including the size and scope of
the project.
19) The City may reject the use of TIF if it determines the project would place an
extraordinary demand on city services or if the project that would have significant
detrimental impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare of the community.
20) The City may consider amendments to either the district boundaries after a district
is certified, or to the previously-adopted project plan. Amendments may be
necessary to accommodate changes to desired public purpose outcomes.
21) The final interest rate and terms on the TIF Note shall be determined by the City
Council and incorporated into the Development Agreement.
Section III: Economic Analysis and Risk Assessment Process
1) Proposed uses of tax increment will be subject to rigorous economic analysis and
risk assessment. This analysis will be conducted by the TIF Review Staff Team
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
178
through their review process. The analysis may include review and assessment by
consultants. (The TIF Review Staff Team shall consist of: City Manager (or
designee), City Finance Officer, City Engineer, Community Development Director,
Planning/Zoning Administrator, BEDC Economic Development Director.)
2) The analysis and assessment of all proposed uses of tax increment will address the
following questions as part of the standard format for reports to the City Council.
i. What is the public purpose of the financial assistance for this project?
ii. Why is there a financial need for public investment and/or subsidy?
iii. What is the total cost of the project?
iv. What is the appropriate level of public participation?
v. What are the risks associated with the project?
vi. What are the alternative plans for managing the risk?
vii. How does the proposed project finance plan compare with previously
approved comparable projects?
viii. What is the project’s impact on other publicly financed projects?
3) The results of the Economic Analysis and Risk Assessment will be presented to the
City Planning Commission and City Council at a time consistent with the schedule
provided in Section V. The report shall identify any elements of the proposed
project that are not in conformance with this policy.
4) Applicants shall pay a TIF application fee as determined by City resolution as a
means of cost recovery for time and resources involved with approval of a TIF
project. The fee shall be due and payable as part of the application process in
Section V, Step 3. The process outlined in Section V shall not proceed until this
amount has been paid in full. Applicants shall pay the fees associated with the Bond
Counsel and Financial Advisor who shall be retained by the City for review of the
TIF project. Applicants shall pay direct costs associated with processing the TIF
application including but not limited to postage, hearing notices, surveys, platting,
engineering, copying, legal fees, appraisals, recording fees, etc. Such costs shall not
be the responsibility of the City.
5) The City may require periodic reports on the financial and developmental
performance of the TIF district during the term of the district.
Section IV: Eligible costs of tax increment revenue
The City reserves the right to further restrict eligible costs as enumerated in state law in this
section as well as for each TIF project. Private buildings, structures, utilities or other private-
use improvements are not eligible for TIF assistance. Development costs that are eligible for
reimbursement with tax increment revenues are listed below.
Property acquisition
Elimination of slum and blighted conditions on property/land clearance
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
179
Soils corrections
Site preparation/clearing and grading of land
Removal of hazardous wastes or remediation of site contamination
Construction of capital public improvements such as:
Streets Curb and gutter
Storm drainage utilities/ponds Wastewater utilities
Water utilities Sidewalks/trails/pathways
Landscaping improvements Signage & traffic controls
Lighting Public parking lots
Organizational costs
Capitalized interest/finance charges
Professional service costs
Imputed administrative costs
Relocation costs
Other costs permitted by state law as may be prescribed in the TIF project plan.
Section V: Tax Increment Finance application and approval process
Each step must be approved before the project can move to the next step. The project shall be
terminated for failure to meet the requirements of each step unless each step is satisfactorily
completed or the step is modified to the satisfaction of the City in order to advance to the next
step.
1) Applicant submits pre-application for TIF project to Community Development
Director. (Attachment 1)
2) City Council reviews pre-application to assess viability/feasibility of project.
3) Applicant submits full application, including application fee, to Community
Development Director. (Attachment 2)
4) TIF Review Team undertakes review of the application and project.
5) Project Plan is written by Review Team, Bond Counsel, & Financial Advisor.
6) Notices of a Public Hearing before Planning Commission are distributed.
7) Planning Commission holds public hearing; approves the district boundaries and
project plan.
8) TIF Review Team develops Development Agreement.
9) City Council approves district boundaries and Project Plan.
10) City Engineer and Community Development Director give final approval of
development plans.
11) City Council approves Development Agreement.
12) City advertises for bidders for the construction of the project.
13) City staff holds bid opening, City Council awards contract for construction.
14) City Engineer gives contractor notice to proceed with construction.
15) City forwards appropriate records to Dept. of Revenue and County Officers.
16) Review/evaluation of project performance. (Attachment 3)
NOTE: In the event the TIF Review Team rejects the project in Step 4, the applicant may
appeal to the City Council. The TIF Review Team shall provide the applicant a list of
deficiencies as justification for any rejection of the project.
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
180
Attachment 1: Pre-application
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
Applicant Name and Address: Date:________
Proposed project location: (Address, legal description) Attach a map
Current zoning: _____ Zoning Change to accommodate proposed project: _____
Project Description:
Improvements to be financed by TIF:
Estimated cost of total project and TIF-eligible expenses:
Current status of development: (platted, zoned, engineered, designed, etc.)
--------------------------------------- FOR CITY USE ONLY-----------------------------------
Staff Review Comments:
Recommend to go to City Council for Section V; Step 2: ___YES ___NO
If NO, what are the deficiencies?
Community Development Director:________________________ Date:______
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
181
Attachment 2: TIF Application
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
THIS SECTION WILL BE WRITTEN AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVES THE OVERALL POLICY
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
182
Attachment 3: Evaluation/project performance
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
THIS SECTION WILL BE WRITTEN AFTER THE COUNCIL
APPROVES THE OVERALL POLICY
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
183
Other Business:
13. Potential projects for Federal Economic Stimulus
Package.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Federal Economic Stimulus Package
The Obama Administration is set to make a major federal investment in infrastructure
projects as a part of the economic stimulus spending package early in 2009. We do not
yet know the extent or scope of the types of programs let alone what the application or
regulatory process administering these projects will be. However, early indications
from the Obama Transition Team are that there will be a priority on improvements to
existing infrastructure as opposed to new infrastructure; and the focus will be on
projects that can be bid within a window of between 90-120 days. Congress could
approve the program as early as February or March and then it will likely take a few
months for federal agencies to develop rules and program administration details.
Below is a list of projects that could be considered candidates for federal funding that I
am suggesting we submit for the eventual application process.
BEDC has already submitted a list to the Economic Development Administration (EDA)
of potential projects for the Brookings area that meet that criteria but these projects
could find their way into other yet-to-be-determined programs. As such, I would
recommend we duplicate much of that list which is below. Unquestionably, the
eligibility of projects will change as the provisions of the federal stimulus package are
determined but we should have a list of potential projects ready for submission.
Innovation Campus infrastructure $4 million
Wiese Business Park infrastructure $2 million
34th Avenue/20th Street improvement $12 million
11th St. infrastructure and street $1 million
Storm drainage improvements $20 million
Railroad safety improvements $1 million
Smart grid/demand mgmt/conservation $510,000 (electric)
Transmission/distribution replacement $1.9 million (electric)
Substation/transformer replacement $2.5 million (electric)
Broadband telecommunication network $750,000 (telecommunications)
Wastewater collector system rehab $600,000 (wastewater)
Water main repair and replacement $560,000 (water)
Total $46.82 million
Requested action would be a motion adopting these local projects as potential
candidates to be submitted for consideration for federal economic stimulus funding.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
184
Other Business:
14. Preview of 2009 Capital Construction Items.
Below is an itemized list of the section from City’s 2009 capital improvement project list
that addresses construction projects. Staff is in the process of developing workplans to
execute these projects during the coming construction season. This list does not include
minor capital construction items which are mostly maintenance in nature.
Completion of 2008 projects
Downtown streetscape project (intersection Main/3rd; landscaping; punch-list)
Timberline Ponds (sidewalks, seeding, trees)
15th Street at Camelot School
32nd Avenue North (asphalt wear course)
Edgebrook Golf Course Executive Course (seeding)
Moriarty Park restroom building
Hillcrest Park playground equipment
2009 Construction projects– streets and infrastructure
Innovation Campus infrastructure
Martin Drive mill and overlay
5th St. from 3rd Ave. to Main Ave. mill and overlay
4th St. from 3rd Ave. to Main Ave. mill and overlay
East corridor Bike Trail Project (DOT with city match)
Traffic signal upgrade at Orchard Dr./22nd Ave. (DOT with city match)
15th/Medary 8-lot subdivision for ICAP
Bike lane designations
Storm Drainage projects from Master Plan (specific projects TBD by April)
Airport fuel system
Electronic storage building at Landfill/Solid Waste facility
Roof & overhead door repairs at three buildings
2009 Construction projects – parks
Safe-Route-to-School sidewalk & trail system
Larson Ice Center – red rink seating
Larson Ice Center – west parking lot and west building façade improvements
Larson Ice Center – east parking lot re-surfacing
Pioneer Park band shell rehab
Camelot Park playground equipment and sidewalk
Hillcrest Park picnic shelter
Northbrook Park – Chittick Gardens shelter and restroom
Library/Senior Center landscaping (former Calhoon bldg. site)
Edgebrook Golf Course – sign on 22nd Ave.
ADA modifications to various playground equipment
City Council Packet
January 13, 2009
185
15. Adjourn.