Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_02_24 CC PKTCity Council Packet February 24, 2009 Brookings City Council Tuesday, February 24, 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. Storm Drainage Plan Updates. 2. Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) Relocation. 3. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. 4. Council Invites & Obligations. 5. 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 award bids for Fire Department Equipment. C. Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle. D. Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. E. Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. F. Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. G. Action on Resolution No. 14-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-01SWR, Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair Project. H. Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project. I. Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. J. Action on Resolution No. 17-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-123, Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project. K. Action on Resolution No. 18-09, Resolution for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program, P3234(50) PCN 00RL, 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call * Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed 1 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. 7. Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Public Hearing: March 10th Second Readings & Public Hearings: 8. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 19-09, a resolution to vacate Ninth Street from the west side of 14th Avenue to the Student Center Lane roadway on the SDSU Campus. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call 9. 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. 2 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. Storm Water Drainage Plan Updates. The draft City of Brookings Master Drainage Plan was adopted by the City Council at their September 23rd, 2008 meeting. 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 • technical SWMM model data which may be used by consultants for drainage analysis of existing and future developments The City Council adopted the following schedule at their October 28, 2008 meeting: 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 3 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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 The City Council work session on January 27, 2009 held discussion regarding the ranking criteria and weighting of each criteria. The Council asked that additional criteria categories be added, and that the weighting be adjusted to 1.2 for the “citizen safety” category. The following general guideline has been modified to encompass these changes. A public notice of this meeting was sent to interested persons and a press release was issued for this work session. 4 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan February 17, 2009 City Engineer’s Office ©2009 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Table of Contents Abstract:....................................................................................... 2 Introduction:.................................................................................. 2 Ranking Procedure:...................................................................... 2 Recent Changes to the Project Ranking System ......................... 3 Potential Environmental Impact.................................................... 4 Number of Buildings Affected ....................................................... 5 Occupant Evacuation:.................................................................. 6 Property Affected:......................................................................... 7 Traffic Impact:............................................................................... 8 Location in Basin:......................................................................... 9 Cost vs Budget:............................................................................ 9 Reduced Maintenance Issues:................................................... 10 Infrastructure Age:...................................................................... 10 Citizen Safety:............................................................................ 11 Flexibility of Project Prioritization:............................................... 11 City of Brookings February 17, 2009 1 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Drainage Project Ranking Guide for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Abstract: In an effort to reduce flooding in various areas of the city, the City of Brookings has implemented a ‘Master Drainage Plan’. This plan pinpoints observable problem areas within the City, targets the source of the problem, and recommends one or more solutions for either a 5 year or 100 year storm event. These areas of study are listed in the Master Drainage Plan along with estimates of the cost of remediation for each area. In order to prioritize the drainage projects, a prioritization system was developed which assigns a ranking score to each project based on its overall benefit to the City in various categories. This document serves as a guide to assign these scores. As a rule of thumb, projects which minimize the immediate threat to life and safety receive the highest scores throughout the prioritization system. Each project will be individually scored on a scale of zero (0) to five (5) in a series of ten (10) different categories. The summation of the project scores in each of the categories determines the overall rank of the project. Introduction: A series of thirteen (13) drainage improvement projects have been set forth in the City of Brookings, and defined in the Master Drainage Plan in 2008. The Master Drainage Plan defined the problem areas which were selected on the basis of previous citizen input and engineering observation. Each area was analyzed for its adequacy to accommodate both a 5 year and 100 year storm event. Improvements for each of the 13 areas were recommended, as well as an approximate cost of each improvement. The total cost of all the combined projects is beyond the short term budgeting capabilities of the City; therefore, a system of drainage project prioritization needs to be developed. The purpose of this document is to provide a technical basis for ranking each of the 13 projects. This prioritization system can also be used for future drainage concerns as they arise. Ranking Procedure: The ranking of the projects will be based on a series of different criteria. The criteria are as follows (in no particular order): 1. Potential Environmental Impact 2. Number of Buildings Affected 3. Occupant Evacuation 4. Property Affected City of Brookings February 17, 2009 2 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 5. Traffic Impact 6. Location in Basin 7. Cost Versus Budget 8. Reduced Maintenance Issues 9. Infrastructure Age 10. Citizen Safety Each criterion will be discussed herein. Every project will be scored in each of the criteria items above. The score will be based on a 0 to 5 scale with no fractional numbers. Each of the criteria will also have a certain ‘weight’ assigned to it. The weighting of each criterion is like ranking the importance of the ranking criteria itself. Some criteria are more important than others. For instance, it would not make sense to budget moneys to improve a specific area if the problem is actually the result of another problem upstream. Therefore, location of the project within the basin has a higher weight than the cost of the project. Determining the weight of each criterion is purely qualitative versus quantitative. In general, the safety of the public should be the determining factor for rating each criterion. Even though any amount of flooding is considered unsafe, the flooding which poses the most immediate threat to public safety is weighted the highest with a 1.0. The exception is the cost/budget criterion, which is also 1.0. It should be the City’s goal to accomplish as much protection as possible with the limited amount of funds available. The weighting of each criterion will be on a scale from 0.1 to 1.0. The only exception is the weight for ‘Citizen Safety’, which has been raised to 1.2 at the request of City Council in order to stress the importance of that criterion. The score of each project is then multiplied by the weight for that particular criterion. Recent Changes to the Project Ranking System The “complaint basis” criterion, which was originally proposed, has been removed from the list. This is because most complaints have a legitimate basis that already falls into one or more of the criteria categories. When a drainage complaint is brought to the City, we investigate the problem area and try to determine the cause. The cause can be infrastructure sizing, maintenance, etc. Therefore, the “complaint” itself is not the basis for ranking the project; rather, the “reason” for the complaint is the actual basis. A new criterion was added to the project prioritization system called “Potential Environmental Impact”. This was added to include potential environmental effects that a particular drainage project may have within or downstream of the City of Brookings. The “15th Street South and Christine Avenue Extension” project was removed from the list of drainage projects to be ranked. This is because the project is already in the works as of 2008. Since this is new construction, the developers typically must comply with the requirements of the City’s Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. In this particular situation, the developer and the City of Brookings have reached an assurance agreement to combine the storm drainage improvements of the 15th Street South, Camelot Drive, Christine Avenue project; the Camelot Intermediate School City of Brookings February 17, 2009 3 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan project; and the adjacent developer’s platted lots and construction of Pactola and Sylvan Drives into one project. The developer will cost share in the project and the City’s portion of the cost has already been budgeted for 2009; therefore, there is no need to rank the project for future funding. After presenting the first draft of the drainage criterion weighting system to the City Council, several suggestions were made to help improve the prioritization system. The first suggestion was to add a ‘property damage’ criterion which would take into consideration the potential value of property damage as a result of a flood. It was pointed out that the weight of this category would need to reflect its relation to life and safety issues; therefore the weight would be fairly low. It was also pointed out that; while property values would be taken into consideration, the City maintains that 1) life and safety concerns come first; and 2) the City does not intend to prioritize drainage projects based on the financial and social status of those affected. Another suggestion was to break up the ‘Buildings Affected’ category into two separate categories for ‘Number of Buildings Affected’ and ‘Occupant Evacuation’. This is because evacuation is generally a more immediate response to a flooding situation and is more closely related to ‘life and safety’ than is the longer-term affects of structural damage to buildings. The previous single category had a weight of 0.9 because it considered evacuation. Now that the category has been subdivided, the evacuation category carries a 0.9 weighting; while the building category carries a 0.7 weighting. The philosophy is explained later in this document. Finally, it was suggested that the weight of the ‘Citizen Safety’ category should be raised to 1.2 in order to emphasize the City’s commitment to protecting the life and safety of its citizens. Council indicated a consensus that the weighting values for the other categories were acceptable. The possibility of considering ‘project phasing’ as a means to rank projects is discussed in the ‘Cost vs Budget’ category. Project phasing is the ability to break a project down into various construction phases in order to spread out the cost over a longer period of time. Further discussion is presented at the end of this document regarding the need for flexibility of the project prioritization list, as well as future utilization of this prioritization system. Potential Environmental Impact This ranking criterion takes into consideration potential environmental impacts as a result of a drainage project; particularly its effect on wetlands. While wetlands are typically undesirable for developers, they serve an important purpose in nature, not only because they provide habitat for many species of plants and animals, but also because they can provide natural stormwater detention. Since this category poses no immediate threat to human life and safety, the weighting factor can be fairly low. An important consideration when making any change in topography as a result of a drainage project is its effect on ecology and the environment. While the proposed projects in Brookings are on a relatively small scale, some consideration should be made as to how they will impact the established ecology, regardless of whether the ecology was natural or manmade to begin with. Even though past development within the City of Brookings created an excess amount of runoff City of Brookings February 17, 2009 4 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan that would otherwise not have occurred, the downstream ecology has naturally adapted to these changes over time. Some of these adaptations have taken several decades or a century to occur, and could even be considered an asset to the community. When scoring this category, it will be important to remember that ‘correcting’ what humans have already done may not always be correct. While a full environmental impact study might not be necessary for this purpose; at minimum a quick assessment of potential impact should be made based on observable, existing wetland, habitat, and vegetation conditions. Scoring for this category will be on a scale of 1 to 5. Those projects which would ‘appear’ to have little or no potential environmental impact would receive a score of five (5), meaning projects with less impact are preferred. Projects which have the potential for major impact would receive a score of one (1). The premise for this is projects with a high potential environmental impact could possibly drop down on the prioritization list; thereby allowing for more time to complete a detailed environmental assessment, change the design or scope of the project, and account any possible changes in the cost of the project. Number of Buildings Affected This criterion refers to all buildings and structures directly affected by flooding which have the potential to be improved by undertaking a specific project. This includes existing structures and potential future structures based on the City’s Vision 2020 zoning plan. The number of structures affected is highly dependent on the actual storm event (5yr, 10yr, 100yr storm, etc). Due to the lack of recorded flood elevations after significant rainfall events in Brookings, it is important to note that the physical extent of flooding can only be predicted by theoretical methods and hypothetical circumstances. On the other hand, history has shown that a 50 year flood can occur from only a 2 year storm event if the conditions are right. Therefore, reasonable assumptions need to be made before estimating the number of structures affected. As previously described, the weight of a particular criterion is based on the immediate threat to life and safety. Weighting of this criterion should be mid to high ranged, but less than 1.0 because the threat to life and safety is less than immediate. For example, a 100 yr flood event may take a period of several minutes to several hours to occur from the time that a threat is imminent. A catastrophic structural failure of the building is likely to take even longer. In such events, it is most likely that occupants will have had some warning to evacuate a building prior to the structure becoming an immediate threat to life and safety. This is in contrast to some cities with rivers and streams running through the town center; where structural flood damage can occur at a more rapid and dangerous rate. Nonetheless, a weight of at least 0.70 should be assigned to this category. The ranking score is based on the number of structures affected as the result of a flood event. A score of zero (0) can either mean that no structures would be expected to be affected in the study area or that the project does not change the number of structures affected. The recommended scores in Table 1 are designed to quickly raise the rank City of Brookings February 17, 2009 5 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Table 1: Scoring Table for the ‘Number Buildings Affected’ Category. Number of Buildings Affected Score 0 (or no change) 0 1 to 2 1 3 to 5 2 6 to 9 3 10 to 14 4 15 or More 5 It is important to understand that these numbers are nothing more than estimates. A more extensive, hydrological modeling analysis and survey would need to be performed to determine the actual number of buildings and occupants affected. This was beyond the scope of the Master Drainage Plan. Even then, an extensive hydrological analysis is still just an estimate. Occupant Evacuation: In the event of a flood, certain structures may need to be evacuated either during or after the event for safety reasons. The number of occupants will be the primary consideration. As with the ‘Number of Buildings Affected’ category, a reasonable estimate of occupants affected will be made without performing an extensive hydrological study. Since evacuation is generally an emergency response to an immediate threat, the weight of this category would be fairly high. Consideration of the Brookings’ topography and hydrology should be used when deciding a weighting factor. Again, the potential for rapid washouts in Brookings is far less than other cities located along rivers or in canyons. A weight of 0.8 to 0.9 is recommended. For these purposes, an occupant will be anyone in a structure who would need to be evacuated in the event of a flood emergency. For the most part, this would be equal to the estimated number of people living in a structure. Where a place of business is concerned, the number of occupants would be the approximate number of employees and a reasonable approximation of the number of customers. The term ‘reasonable approximation’ of the number of customers is stressed because people tend to stay at their homes during periods of bad weather versus going out to run various errands. A score for the evacuation category will be assigned based on the number potential evacuations as described in the previous paragraphs. Projects which would reduce the number of evacuees would receive a higher score. Projects which do not change the number of people who would need to be evacuated would receive a score of zero (0), as the category is not applicable to the project. A suggested scale for scoring evacuation potential is given in Table 2. Table 2: Scoring Table for the ‘Occupant Evacuation’ Category. Occupants Evacuated Score 0 0 City of Brookings February 17, 2009 6 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 1 to 10 1 11 to 20 2 21 to 30 3 13 to 40 4 41 or more 5 Property Affected: In general, this category relates to the monetary damage of personal property. Personal property could include anything from family photos, electronics, furniture, vehicles, to an entire building. Although buildings are already addressed in their own category, this category mainly pertains to the value of the building, which is not a consideration in the other category. By default, this category would seem to have very little pertinence in regards to life and safety. However, water damage to personal property can pose a certain level of health risk. With public education on the proper treatment of water damaged items, the potential health risks can be minimized. This category is quite far from being an immediate threat to life and safety. To caveat that statement, while such health effects are generally not immediate, the delayed onset of illness can make it difficult to ascertain the source of the illness. Therefore, a midrange weight of 0.5 would be recommended for this category. The scoring of this category should be purely qualitative, not quantitative. One thing the City wanted to avoid was to rank drainage projects based on the socio-economic status of its citizens. In some ways, this category does exactly that. Some of the data used to score this category can be obtained from the Brookings County assessment values. Personal property is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify without blatant invasion of privacy. Some people would be happy to talk about the value of their possessions, while others would rather not. However, some of the subjectivity in scoring this category can be overcome by using readily available data such as the county system. This category is the most controversial to score because the concept of ‘loss’ is very dependent on the individual. Some personal property could be considered priceless because it can never be replaced. As is the case with the ‘citizen safety’ category, it would not be unreasonable to assign a score of five (5) to every project. However, this would nullify the purpose of having the category, as it would not change the overall ranking results. It is important to have a starting point to distinguish one project from another. A common form of personal property damage is the damage to vehicles parked on flooded streets. In many cases, this damage is unavoidable, even with drainage improvement. This is because many streets in Brookings are actually designed to carry excess stormwater once the storm sewer capacity has been exceeded. It is also important to look at areas where a high number of personal items can be reasonably assumed, as with storage units and high population density areas. Another consideration is the ‘loss of use’ or the temporary ‘loss of revenue’ as it relates to businesses affected by flooding. Projects will be scored on a scale of 0 to 5 as they relate to ‘perceived potential loss’. A score of City of Brookings February 17, 2009 7 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan zero (0) will be assigned to projects which do not change the potential for loss. Higher scores will be assigned to projects which have the most potential to minimize the most amount of property damage or loss. Traffic Impact: Traffic impact refers to blockage of streets due to localized flooding as a result of minor storm events such as the 5 year storm and other more frequent events. There is a limitation to this criterion. In extreme cases such as the 100 year storm event, certain streets in the City have actually been designed to carry peak stormwater water flows within the roadway and boulevard, making travel on these streets impossible. For the most part, the storm sewer piping and inlets in the City are designed to handle a 5 year storm event. At this time very few, if any, cities in South Dakota design streets with storm sewer piping beyond that capacity. The cost of augmenting storm sewer pipe capacity increases exponentially with the size and type of storm event. Therefore, it is very common to assume that the street will need to carry at least part of a storm surge. This will not change. Vehicular traffic in anything greater than a 5 year storm is considered risky regardless of the street design. The weighting of the traffic impact criterion is also less than 1.0 because the flooding of streets in Brookings generally occurs over a period of hours in minor storms and several minutes in major storms. Motorists have ample time to decide whether or not to negotiate a certain street and should already understand that they should never attempt to drive through a flooded street. Safety becomes critical when emergency vehicles need to access an area isolated by flooding. A mid to high range weight is suggested. The score of traffic impact will mostly be relative to the ‘inconvenience factor’ of flooded streets. Considerations will be made to the traffic counts of the affected streets and the availability of alternate routes. For example, a low traffic street will receive a lower score than a high traffic street. However a low traffic street or streets which isolate residents or occupants when flooded, could receive a higher score than a high traffic street that does not isolate. Table 3 provides some guidance criteria for scoring traffic impact. Table 3: Scoring Table for the ‘Traffic Impact’ Category. Traffic Situation: Score No traffic impact 0 Low traffic, no isolation, more than 1 alternate route 1 Low traffic, no isolation, 1 alternate route 2 Medium traffic, no isolation, 1 alternate route 3 High traffic, no isolation, more than 1 alternate route 4 High traffic with 1 alternate route, or any traffic with total isolation 5 City of Brookings February 17, 2009 8 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Location in Basin: The location within the basin refers to the logical progression of drainage improvements in a local minor watershed (basin). In some cases, a drainage improvement can create additional problems either upstream or downstream. In other cases, a drainage improvement can completely eliminate the need for certain other improvements. An understanding of such hydrological interactions is required to make these determinations. The location of the drainage improvement within the basin can directly affect public safety during a flood event. Some areas are more critical than others, especially if there is a potential for increased flooding downstream. Therefore, the weighting of this criterion should be at or near 1.0. The scoring of the location of a project is based on the project’s position within a hydrological basin. Detention ponds will score higher the closer they are to the populous center of the City; and drainage conduit improvements (storm sewers, ditches, channels, etc) will score higher the further away from the center of the City. Scoring will be on a scale of 0 to 5. A score of zero (0) means the location of the project has no bearing on upstream or downstream hydrology. With respect to downstream drainage conduit improvement projects taking priority over upstream improvements; it must be established that the downstream improvements will be sized properly in order to handle all future upstream improvements. With respect to detention ponds taking preference over downstream improvements; it is assumed that the discharge from these ponds will reduce the peak flows in the existing downstream systems. Even though the existing downstream system may still be undersized after the construction of a detention pond, the alternative of upsizing the downstream system without the pond can be more costly and risky. Cost vs Budget: Certain projects may be important from an engineering standpoint; but also may be well beyond the City’s budgeting capabilities. Spending large sums of money on these projects up front could jeopardize the ability to make other improvements in a timely manner. Careful budget planning must be used. It should be the City’s goal to accomplish as many improvements as possible in the least amount of time. This is why “cost vs budget” should have a weighting of 1.0. In some cases, one large, expensive project may actually improve a vast area of the City and reduce the urgency for other improvements. This could then receive a higher score. Therefore it becomes a cost-versus-benefit analysis. On the other hand, a certain project may cost very little and take very little time to accomplish. This would also receive a high score because it can easily fit into the budget along with larger projects. This is the cost-versus-budget analysis. Both budget and benefit are considered in scoring. The purpose of this criterion is to move less expensive projects higher in rank because they are easy to budget simultaneously with more expensive, high ranking projects. In other words, the City may choose the number one project to be completed the first year, but also may look at the ranking of less expensive projects to fill out any remaining budget left over in that year. The ‘Cost vs Budget’ criterion also takes into consideration whether or not the construction of a certain project can be ‘phased’. Construction phasing would allow one particular portion of the City of Brookings February 17, 2009 9 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan project to be built at a lesser cost than the total project. When construction phasing is a possibility, a cost estimate will be determined to build the first phase. This cost can then be used as a basis for determining the scoring in this category. Project phases will be eligible for consideration in this category only when each construction phase is capable of providing a ‘stand-alone’ benefit to the overall drainage improvement plan. In other words, a construction phase which does not effectively reduce peak flows or increase capacity without constructing the remaining phases would not be eligible for reduced cost consideration. The scoring is on a scale of 1 to 5 and does not simply reflect the cost of the project. A score of one (1) means that the cost of the project is well beyond the City’s funding scenario in the near future. A score of five (5) could either mean that the cost of the project is minimal with respect to the available budget, or that the cost of the project improves larger sections of the City and reduces the cost of other drainage improvements. Reduced Maintenance Issues: This criterion refers to the maintenance of drainage channels, gutters, inlets, ponds, storm sewer pipes, etc. Without continuous maintenance, the drainage capacity of these features can be greatly reduced. The most significant maintenance issue is the clearing of drainage ditches and swales. Some drainage swales are only carrying about 25% of their potential capacity because of vegetation overgrowth. In many situations, vegetation is very difficult to control because saturated soils make it nearly impossible to operate maintenance equipment. Concrete valley gutters, box culverts, and other drainage conveyance structures would greatly reduce the need and frequency of maintenance. While unmaintained drainage features can exacerbate flooding issues, it is unlikely to cause an immediate threat to life and safety. Therefore, the weighting factor for this criterion should be fairly low. Scoring (from 0 to 5) will be based upon whether or not the project will reduce any existing maintenance issues or create new issues. A score of zero (0) means there will be no reduction of maintenance. In some cases, an improvement may add certain new maintenance duties but reduce other maintenance duties, as with a detention pond. Higher scores will be assigned to projects which reduce the amount of maintenance that is currently required. Typically, higher scores would be associated with the reduction or elimination of vegetated ditches. Mid level scores would be assigned to projects that do not necessarily eliminate vegetated ditches, but make them easier to maintain as is the case with the addition of concrete valley gutters. Infrastructure Age: The “infrastructure age” criterion applies to drainage features that may be currently functioning adequately, but nearing the end of their useful life or in danger of failing in the near future. This could also apply to aging infrastructure that is adequate for smaller storms, but not larger ones. The term ‘infrastructure’ generally refers to hard structures such as storm sewer pipes and inlets, but could also refer to other topographic features such as basins and drainage swales. However, the improvement of such topographic features could possibly fall under the maintenance City of Brookings February 17, 2009 10 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan category and even the environmental impact category. When ranking topographic features, consideration should be made as to what category the feature falls into. In most cases, the age of the infrastructure does not pose an immediate threat to life and safety due to the nature of these drainage features. However, certain features such as inlet design and inlet protection may be obsolete. The weighting of the “infrastructure age” should be less than 1.0, but more than some of the other criteria used. The scoring (0 to 5) of this criterion should be based primarily on the need to replace aging infrastructure. Consideration is given to structures that are obsolete in design and function. When practical, existing structures should be upgraded to the City’s current design standard. A score of zero (0) means that no aging infrastructure will be replaced. A score of five (5) means there is imminent danger of structural failure. At this time, there does not appear to be any infrastructure in the City of Brookings that would receive a score of 5. Citizen Safety: This ranking criterion is directly related to the personal safety of pedestrians and bystanders in the vicinity of the problem area. It refers to an immediate threat to life and safety; therefore, the weighting should be a full 1.0. Generally, an immediate threat means large quantities of fast moving water, capable of sweeping a person downstream. In some cities, rivers and permanent streams constitute a greater threat to safety than any of the drainage features in Brookings because they can completely engulf and carry an entire vehicle downstream. Therefore, this criterion will be limited to non-vehicular safety of citizens. Vehicular safety should be assessed in the “traffic impact” scoring criterion. Scoring will reflect how immediate the threat of flooding is to life and safety. Standing water and flowing water are unavoidable because they occur in nature. However, water that is standing or slow flowing in areas that are unnatural will increase the threat because people do not expect it to be there. These areas will have a lower score than areas that experience fast moving waters during periods of flood. Higher scores will also be given to projects that improve the safety of existing structures. For example, a project that replaces damaged or unprotected inlets and culverts with newer, safer products will receive a higher score. Higher scores will also be given to areas that see more pedestrians than others. For example, a project that improves the safety near parks and walkways will receive a higher score than those in remote or unpopulated areas. A project which does not change the immediate threat to life and safety will receive a score of zero (0). This does not necessarily mean that a threat does not exist; it simply means that there will be no change as a result of the project. Flexibility of Project Prioritization: The project prioritization system presented herein should never be construed as a ‘rigid’ system for determining the long term strategy. This is because of the ‘hydrological interaction’ that can occur between two or more study areas. For example, construction of a detention pond in one part of the city could reduce peak storm flows in another part of the city; which could then affect City of Brookings February 17, 2009 11 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan the scoring of related projects. Therefore, it is recommended that the prioritization list be reevaluated in each category every time a drainage project has been completed. It is also possible that when a certain project requires construction phasing, that the project could be reevaluated after each phase is complete. Construction phases should be planned such that they are well-delineated and perform a stand-alone function that is beneficial to the overall drainage improvement goal. Once a project phase is complete, the remaining project requirements and costs can be reinserted into the prioritization process. The results could either move the remaining portion of the project either up or down in the project prioritization list. Doing this could give other projects a chance to move further up on the list if it truly is warranted. Flexibility is also important as new technologies become available which could reduce costs or make certain projects operate more efficiently. The process of drainage improvement should always be open to new ideas as well. The City engineering department will work to stay informed on other drainage strategies and technologies utilized throughout the nation and find ways to incorporate ideas that may provide a better solution. It is highly recommended that when a project prioritization list is adopted, the list should only be valid for no more than one (1) year. At minimum, the list of projects should be reevaluated on an annual basis as some of the drainage improvements begin to take place. By doing so, the City should be able to achieve the greatest benefit in the least amount of time. City of Brookings February 17, 2009 12 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan City of Brookings February 17, 2009 13 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. Possible eastside relocation of Brookings Area Transit Authority Service. TO: Mayor & City Council Members FROM: Jeffrey W. Weldon, Brookings City Manager RE: BATA Relocation The City was approached by Brenda Schweitzer, Executive Director of the Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA), about the possibility of re-locating their facility to a different location that would provide a larger facility. They currently have no room to grow and need a larger bus garage facilities. Having looked for available land around the community and previous work session discussion with City Council, BATA would like to discuss with the City Council using some of the city property north of the Larson Ice Arena campground hookups or a corner parcel in the Telkamp Industrial Park. The purpose of having this item on the work session is to further assess your level of interest in this project, and give staff direction if you wish to pursue the idea. Brenda Schweitzer will be at the work session to further describe their space needs and thoughts about locating in this area. 19 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. 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 award bids for Fire Department Equipment. C. Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle. D. Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. E. Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. F. Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. G. Action on Resolution No. 14-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-01SWR, Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair Project. H. Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project. I. Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. J. Action on Resolution No. 17-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-123, Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project. K. Action on Resolution No. 18-09, Resolution for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program, P3234(50) PCN 00RL, 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call 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. 7. Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Public Hearing: March 10th Second Readings & Public Hearings: 8. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 19-09, a resolution to vacate Ninth Street from the west side of 14th Avenue to the Student Center Lane roadway on the SDSU Campus. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call 9. Adjourn. 24 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION ** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics. 4. Council Invites & Obligations February 23rd Annual Chamber/BEDC Meeting 5 pm Brookings February 24th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall February 26th Human Rights Committee Butler Award Ceremony for Dr. Charles Woodard 7 pm Old Sanctuary February 27th Deadline to file petitions 5 pm March 3rd Young Professionals City/County Volunteer Committee Forum 5:30 pm Swiftel Center March 16-20 Board of Equalization Hearings March 25-26 SD Airports Conference 8:30 am Aberdeen Ramkota March 31st Brookings County Annual Feed 5:30 pm City Fire Hall April 14th Election 25 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. 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. 26 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting 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 award bids for Fire Department Equipment. C. Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle. D. Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. E. Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. F. Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. G. Action on Resolution No. 14-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-01SWR, Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair Project. H. Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project. I. Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. J. Action on Resolution No. 17-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-123, Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project. K. Action on Resolution No. 18-09, Resolution for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program, P3234(50) PCN 00RL, 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call * Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation. 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. 7. Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Public Hearing: March 10th Second Readings & Public Hearings: 8. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 19-09, a resolution to vacate Ninth Street from the west side of 14th Avenue to the Student Center Lane roadway on the SDSU Campus. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call 9. Adjourn. 27 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 CONSENT AGENDA #4 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to award bids for Fire Department Equipment. C. Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle. D. Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. E. Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. F. Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. G. Action on Resolution No. 14-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-01SWR, Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair Project. H. Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project. I. Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. J. Action on Resolution No. 17-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-123, Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project. K. Action on Resolution No. 18-09, Resolution for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program, P3245(50) PCN 00RL, 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Approve 28 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 CONSENT AGENDA #4 4B. Action to award bids for Fire Department Equipment. MEMORADUM To: Jeff Weldon, Brookings City Manager From: Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Chief Date: February 17, 2009 RE: Bid – USAR Gear I have reviewed the bid we received Tuesday February 17th, 2009. The bid appears to be complete for: 15 - USAR Jacket PBO (millennia) No thermal liner “SR” crosstech moisture barrier as per Dept. Specs. 15 - USAR Pants PBO (millennia) No thermal liner “SR” crosstech moisture barrier as per Dept. Specs. 15 - Technical Rescue/light-weight USAR, Full Brim w/4-point suspension. M&T Fire & Safety Volga, SD $24,714.00 No other bids were received. I would recommend that M&T Fire & Safety be awarded the bid. 29 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4C: Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle. MEMORADUM To: Jeff Weldon, Brookings City Manager From: Darrell Hartmann, Brookings Fire Chief Date: February 17, 2009 RE: Bid - 2009 ¾ Ton 4x4 Truck I have reviewed the bid we received Tuesday February 17th, 2009. It appeared to be complete. No other bids were received. Einspahr Auto Plaza Inc, Brookings $33,390.00 I would recommend the bid be awarded to Einspahr Auto Plaza Inc. I believe that offering this bid to Einspahr Auto Plaza Inc, would be very beneficial to the local economy by keeping the business in town and would provide local service and warranty 30 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4D: Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Revised joint city-school facilities agreement Attached is a revised and updated joint facility agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings Public Schools. This document replaces the original agreement from 1966 which is attached. Our facilities have obviously changed dramatically in 42 years and needed to be updated. The new agreement makes no material changes to the current practice that exists between both units of government; rather, it simply commits to writing what has been our common, mutual, and evolving arrangements over time to our address our needs. This document was reviewed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and recommended for your approval. The Brookings Board of Education approved this document at their regular meeting on February 9. This document supports and continues the past practice of the City and School jointly planning and using compatible facilities for their mutual benefit. Such a model has served us well in the past, saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years, promoted city recreation and school athletic programs and purposes, and is considered a model for good intergovernmental partnerships. As always, this agreement will be administered jointly through the City’s Park, Recreation and Forestry Department and the School Activities Department. A supplemental agreement to this document is an “Operational Addendum” described in Section 2 which itemizes the specific arrangements for the each park/school facility between the two parties. This document will serve as a staff tool to manage the facilities. School Supt. Dr. DeGroot and I worked out the details of both agreements with assistance from Park & Recreation Director Frerichs and Activities Director Berseth. Staff recommends your approval. 31 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 AGREEMENT FOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION PERTAINING TO THE JOINT USE OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ____________________ This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation, hereafter referred to as “City”, and Brookings School District 5-1, hereafter referred to as “School”. WHEREAS, each of the parties own and maintain certain buildings and facilities which could be utilized by the other for purposes of executing their respective mission and public service objectives. Further, the parties recognize it is in the best interest of the public and to taxpayers to avoid duplication, maximize utilization, and minimize costs so facilities can be shared; and that operations and costs are to be managed to provide the greatest possible benefit to both parties and the general public, NOW THEREFORE, in order to accomplish the objectives set forth above, the parties hereto agree to the following: 1. Designated Representatives. The Director of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry shall represent the City and the Activities Director shall represent the School in developing changes, updates, modifications as deemed necessary to this agreement. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry shall report such changes to the City Manager and the Activities Director shall report such changes to the School Superintendent who shall subsequently meet if necessary to address any changes, updates, or modifications. Changes to this agreement shall be approved by the governing body of each governing unit. 2. Description of facility and party responsibilities. • FACILITY DEVELOPMENT: The City and School share the same philosophy of joint school/park facilities. In the past, city parks/schools, and joint facilities have been planned to accommodate both parties. To the extent possible this practice will continue in the future. This process maximizes use of both outdoor and indoor facilities for the use of students as well as members of the community. • FACILITY MAINTENANCE: The City and School shall cooperate in maintenance, scheduling, and usage of both indoor and outdoor facilities. These responsibilities will be defined further through an Operational Addendum to this agreement itemizing arrangements for each school/park facility, developed by the Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry and the Activities Director. This agreement may provide for the transfer of funds for services provided or in kind payments in lieu of services provided as noted on the operational addendum. 32 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 • ANNUAL REVIEW AND MODIFICATIONS: School and City staff shall meet annually to review the past year’s operation and discuss any changes that should be made to the Operational Addendum. Specific modifications to use, scheduling, and maintenance of each facility are considered managerial purview and would not require approval of the governing bodies, but would be subject to approval by the City Manager and School Superintendent. Said modifications must maintain the joint use guidelines and philosophy of this agreement. 3. Indemnification. The City and School agree that each shall defend, indemnify and save the other, and their officers and employees harmless against all liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses which any or all of them may hereafter incur or pay out as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of the indemnifying party. Accordingly, the City shall defend, indemnify and save the School, its officers and employees harmless against all liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses which the School may hereafter incur or pay out as a result of negligent acts or omissions of the City in performing this Agreement, and the School shall defend, indemnify and save the City, its officers and employees harmless against all liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses which the City may hereafter incur or pay out as a result of negligent acts or omissions of the School in performing this Agreement. 4. Mutual cooperation and further agreements The City and School agree to cooperate in good faith with regard to each and every aspect of this agreement. The City and School further agree to negotiate in good faith and to enter such other and further agreements as may be necessary to implement any aspect of this agreement. Any revisions to this agreement must be in writing and any further agreements between the parties must also be in writing and approved by the governing boards of each entity. 5. This agreement can be terminated by either parties but require a one year written notice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date set forth below. CITY OF BROOKINGS BROOKINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT 5-1 By: By: _____________________________ ___________________________ Name: Scott D. Munsterman Name: ______________________ Title: Mayor Title: _______________________ Date: _________________________ Date: _________________________ (SEAL) (SEAL) ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk 33 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4E: Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Operating agreement for restaurant/liquor establishments Attached is the final draft of an operating agreement that applies to restaurants with liquor under the provisions of the new law passed in 2008 and amended in 2009 (SB 126). This has been discussed at two previous work sessions by the City Council with various language changes. If adopted, the City Clerk’s office will maintain two operating agreements; the existing document which is unrestricted as it relates to food service; and a second document that conforms to the new law and may be considered restrictive because it has a food sale requirement. The primary difference is Section 18 of the two documents. 36 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 LIQUOR OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENTS Name of business THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY OF BROOKINGS, a municipal corporation of the State of South Dakota, hereinafter referred to as the “City” and ________________. (dba _________), _____________, owner, hereinafter referred to as the “Manager”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has been issued an on-sale alcoholic beverage license and is engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an operating agreement on a limited basis with the Manager for the purpose of operating an on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City pursuant to law, and WHEREAS, the Manager has offered to have facilities in which to operate said on-sale establishment solely upon the premises hereinafter described. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: I. This Agreement is made and entered into on a limited basis between the parties hereto to allow the Manager to operate a retail on-sale premises, pursuant to and in accordance with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with all State laws and City Ordinances now in effect and as may be enacted in the future. II. The Manager shall be individually responsible for all operating expenses of said on-sale establishment, including but not limited to utilities, taxes, insurance and license fees, if any. The Manager shall furnish all equipment and fixtures necessary to operate the establishment. III. The on-sale establishment shall be located upon real estate in the City of Brookings, South Dakota, described as: (LEGAL DESCRIPTION), City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota 37 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 IV. The Manager shall dispense only alcoholic beverages supplied by the Municipal off-sale establishment. V. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years with the Manager having the option and privilege of a five (5) year extension, subject to the approval of the governing body of the City of Brookings. VI. Either the Manager or the City may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ninety (90) days written notice served by either party upon the other. The City reserves the right to immediately suspend or revoke this Agreement without ninety (90) days written notice for alcohol related violations in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 25-88 or any amendments thereto or for any late payments for alcoholic beverages supplied by the Municipal off-sale establishment to be sold on the premises of Manager. VII. The Manager shall receive as full compensation for its services rendered, the net profit from the on-sale establishment under its management, and the sole profit to be derived by the City shall be the markup hereinafter set forth on alcoholic beverages furnished by the municipality to the Manager for the purposes of resale on the premises as above described. VIII. The Manager shall pay to the City for all alcoholic beverages sold by the City to the Manager for resale on the above-described premises, the actual cost of distilled spirits and wine supplied by the City, plus eleven percent (11%) in excess of such cost; the Manager shall pay to the City for all malt beverages sold by the City to the Manager for resale on the above-described premises, the actual cost of malt beverages, plus ten percent (10%) in excess of such cost. The actual cost shall include cost price and transportation charges. The markup percentages provided in this Agreement are subject to change by the City of Brookings. In the event markup percentages are changed by Ordinance, then the markup percentages provided by City Ordinance shall supercede the markup percentages provided herein. The Manager further agrees that if either of the markup percentages shall be increased at any time by the City, the Manager shall pay the markup as so increased. 38 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 IX. A complete and detailed record shall be maintained by the City of all alcoholic beverages supplied to the on-sale Manager and such alcoholic beverages so supplied shall be evidenced by prenumbered invoices prepared in triplicate showing the date, quantity, brand, size and actual cost of such item, and such invoice shall bear the signature of the authorized representative of the on-sale Manager or its authorized representative. One copy thereof shall be retained by the Municipal off-sale establishment, one copy shall be retained by the on-sale establishment, and one copy shall be filed with the City Clerk. All copies shall be kept as permanent records and made available for reference and audit purposes. The Manager also agrees to maintain a complete record of all alcoholic beverages received from the City. X. In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the Manager agrees to pay the CITY OF BROOKINGS, One Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars ($1,500.00), constituting the Annual License Fee on or by January 1, _________, and on or by the first day of each year thereafter as long as this agreement shall remain in force and effect. The Manager further agrees that if the annual fee shall be increased at any time by the legislature, the Manager shall pay the amount of any such increase. In addition, the Manager agrees to pay the federal stamp fee. XI. The Manager agrees to keep the premises in a neat, clean and attractive appearance, and Manager further agrees to operate said on-sale establishment only on such days and at such hours as permitted by state law and city ordinances. XII. The Manager shall have the right to return, at any time, alcoholic beverages received from the City and to receive in return any deposit made for such alcoholic beverages; in the event of termination of the business, all unused alcoholic beverages, which may be resold without discount may be returned to the City and the Manager shall be reimbursed for the cost of such alcoholic beverages. XIII. The Manager agrees to abide by the credit policies of the City and acknowledges, by execution of this Agreement, receipt of a copy of the credit policies of the City. The City reserves the right to change or terminate its credit policies at any time, but shall be required to provide written notice to Manager prior to the effective date of the change or termination date of the credit policies. 39 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 XIV. The Manager agrees to furnish the City upon demand, evidence of payment of the following: A. All salaries of on-sale employees; B. Social Security and withholding taxes on said employees; C. Worker’s Compensation insurance premiums covering said employees; D. Unemployment taxes on the payrolls of said employees; E. General liability insurance protecting both the City and Manager against claims for injury or damages to persons or property, said policy to have general liability limits of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) single limit, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) aggregate, and a limitation of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for damage to property. The general liability insurance limits are subject to change and Manager agrees to change limits of insurance if required by the City; F. Rent and utility bills; G. Any and all miscellaneous expenses, including taxes. XV. The Manager agrees to observe all Federal and State laws and all ordinances of the City of Brookings. XVI. The City covenants and agrees to furnish the on-sale license to Manager pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement and the terms and conditions of the on-sale license. XVII. The City shall have the right to make inspections and investigations of the premises during the hours of operation, and make audits and examinations of the records of the Manager relating to the on-sale establishment. XVIII. The City shall have the right to require, and the Manager the obligation to provide, applicable financial information as a means of auditing compliance with state and applicable laws, in a format determined by the City, with 30 days written notice. 40 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 XIX. It is further specifically understood and agreed that the waiver of the rights of the City under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuous waiver, and any violation or breach of the terms of this agreement by the Manager shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and grounds for immediate termination and revocation of this Agreement. XX. This agreement shall not be assignable to another person or location without the written consent of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement this ____ day of _____________, 20___. CITY OF BROOKINGS, South Dakota A Municipal Corporation By: Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager ATTEST: Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk MANAGER By: _________________________________ __ Operating Agreement/Business Owner 41 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4F: Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon RE: Resolution providing for a service charge (fee) for processing a tax increment application Attached is a resolution providing for a fee of $1000 to cover the in-house costs associated with reviewing, processing, and analyzing a tax increment finance application. This is part of our continuing process of adopting a more fair and equitable system of attributing costs of services as a finance policy. Because tax increment applications are considered special benefit services instead of general benefit, their cost should be financed by the applicant through a fee or service charge instead of being financed by the general public through general taxes. As such, a fee needs to be established by resolution. I am recommending no charge for staff review of the pre-application and a non- refundable fee of $1000 for the full application. This fee would need to be paid at the time the full application is submitted and no processing of the application would commence until the fee is paid. Based on the first two TIF applications I have processed, I have estimated this to be a fair and equitable amount to cover City costs of staff time, overhead, mailings, publications and legal notices, etc. This would not, however, cover costs associated with legal review, bond counsel, financial review, or the use of any outside consultants necessary for the processing of TIF applications. The applicant would be expected to pay those costs on a direct bill or reimbursement basis. Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution establishing a fee for TIF applications. 42 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Resolution No. 13-09 A Resolution Establishing A Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has adopted policies and procedures for processing applications for Tax Increment Finance assistance from the City, and WHEREAS, the review, analysis, and administration of such applications can be expected to consume City resources, and WHEREAS, the expense of such resources are considered a special benefit exclusively to the applicant and not a general benefit to the overall community, and WHEREAS, such special benefit expenses should be financed by the specific party receiving said benefit from the services constituting a fee for service, and WHEREAS, such fee should be in an amount designed to cover the costs associated with providing the service. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brookings establish a non-refundable application fee of $1000 for a full Tax Increment Finance application. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said fee shall cover only the in-house costs of the City and applicant shall also pay costs associated with the City’s legal and financial analysis of the application that may be incurred beyond this initial application fee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED there shall be no fee associated with the pre-application, the fee must be paid at the time the full application is delivered to the City, and payment of the fee shall not constitute approval of the application. ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS ________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 43 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4G: Action on Resolution No. 14-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008- 01SWR, Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair Project. This project entailed construction of miscellaneous concrete work in the 2008 sidewalk area. This project included repair of curb and gutter, fillets, valley gutters, curb ramps and homeowner trip hazard sidewalks. The final cost of this project was an increase of $2,286.45 to the contract, which was due to additional valley gutter replacement needed for north 32nd Avenue. Total increase of this change order: $2,286.45 Original Contract Price: $28,880.00 Decrease from previously approved Change Orders: $0.00 Contract price prior to this Change Order: $28,880.00 Increase of this Change Order: $2,286.45 Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $31,166.45 Resolution No. 14-09 A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For 2008-01SWR Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Project Consolidated Ready-Mix, Inc. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008- 01SWR Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Project: Construction Change Order Number 1 Final Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a total increase of $2,286.45. Passed and approved this 24th day of February 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 44 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4H: Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008- 06STI, Chip Seal Project. The 2008 Chip Seal Project has been completed. This project entailed applying oil and chip seal to various streets in the 2008 section of Brookings. The project was completed by the completion date and the final cost was an increase of $16,377.90 to the contract price. The excess amount spent was due to adding the Swiftel Parking Lot to the Chip Seal Project. Total increase of this change order: $16,377.90 Original Contract Price: $185,390.00 Decrease from previously approved Change Orders: $0.00 Contract price prior to this Change Order: $185,390.00 Increase of this Change Order: $16,377.90 Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $201,767.90 This resolution will approve the Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for an increase of $16,277.90 to the contract with TopKote, Inc. Resolution No. 15-09 A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For 2008-06STI Chip Seal Project - Topkote, Inc. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008- 06STI Chip Seal Project: Construction Change Order Number 1 Final Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a total increase of $16,377.90. Passed and approved this 24th of February 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 45 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4I: Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008- 08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. The 2008 Street Maintenance and Overlay Project has been completed. This project was the annual street maintenance project that entailed street repairs and asphalt overlays on various streets in Brookings. This project was broken down into several work schedules that were tied together into one contract, which were: • Schedule A: Asphalt F.O.B. Plant (freight on board) – this was used for patching material that the Street Department picks up at the plant • Schedule B: Overlays – for asphalt milling and overlays on designated streets • Schedule C: Larsen Ice Arena Parking Lot – for asphalt digout repairs and asphalt paving on the west side of the Ice Arena. • Schedule D: Drain Tile Project – This project included installing drain tile on Martin Boulevard from Western Avenue to the west end of Esther Heights. The project was completed by the completion date and the final cost was an increase of $4,285.47 from the contract price. The bids for this project were lower than the available budget. Additional paving was needed on 32nd Avenue, causing an increase in cost, although the additional paving was within the budgeted amount. Total increase of this change order: $4,285.47 Original Contract Price: $160,539.59 Decrease from previously approved Change Orders: $0.00 Contract price prior to this Change Order: $160,539.59 Increase of this Change Order: $4,285.47 Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $164,825.06 This resolution will approve the Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for an increase of $4,285.47 to the contract with Bowes Construction Company, Inc. 46 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Resolution No. 16-09 A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For 2008-08STI Street Maintenance & Overlay Project Bowes Construction Company, Inc. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008- 08STI Street Maintenance & Overlay Project: Construction Change Order Number 1 Final Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a total increase of $4,285.47. Passed and approved this 24th of February 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 47 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4J: Action on Resolution No. 17-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008- 123, Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project. This project entailed construction of water mains, sanitary sewer mains, and corresponding service lines in the Seiler Addition. This project was bid with two schedules: Schedule A was the grading portion of the project and Schedule B was the utility portion of the project. VJ Ahlers Excavating, Inc. was the contractor for the utility work, and the work has been completed. The final cost of Schedule B was $101,095.08, which was a decrease of $288.36 to the contract price of $101,383.44, which is detailed as follows: Total decrease of this change order: $288.36 Original Contract Price: $101,383.44 Decrease from previously approved Change Orders: $0.00 Contract price prior to this Change Order: $101,383.44 Decrease of this Change Order: $288.36 Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $101,095.08 This resolution will approve the Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for a decrease of $288.36 to the contract with VJ Ahlers Excavating, Inc. Resolution No. 17-09 A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For 2008-123 Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project Schedule B: VJ Ahlers Excavating, Inc. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-123 Seiler Addition Subdivision Utilities & Grading Project: Construction Change Order Number 1 Final Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a total decrease of $288.36. Passed and approved this 24th day of February 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 48 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 4K: Action on Resolution No. 18-09, Resolution for Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program, P3234(50) PCN 00RL, 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. The South Dakota Department of Transportation has programmed the street project P3234(50) PCN 00RL, which is 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive. This project will entail grading, curb & gutter, pavement, storm sewer and striping. Banners Associates, Inc. has been retained to design this project, and this resolution will authorize this project. After design is complete, this project will be let for bids by the SDDOT for proposed construction in 2010. This resolution will authorize the mayor to sign the agreement for this project. 49 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Resolution No. 18-09 A Resolution For Federal Aid Surface Transportation Program P3234(50) PCN 00RL 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive, Brookings, SD WHEREAS, the Brookings City Council desires the 2010 construction improvement of the road as hereinafter described: LOCATION AND LENGTH: 34th Avenue from US 14 to Prince Drive (0.70 mile) Estimated cost: $1,250,000.00. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Grading, gravel, curb & gutter, storm sewer, asphalt paving base bid with concrete pavement alternate bid, and pavement markings. AND WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is obligated and hereby agrees to provide proper maintenance as required by the Federal Highway Act as amended and supplemented thereto for the project after construction is completed and to regulate or cause to be regulated the installation of utility facilities within the limits of the right-of-way of the proposed project in accordance with State and Federal requirements. AND WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is obligated and hereby agrees to reimburse the State for all costs not reimbursable with Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funds and associated State matching funds. AND WHEREAS, the City of Brookings will request the consultant services of Banners Associates, Inc. to design this project for an estimated cost of $66,700.00. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the South Dakota Department of Transportation be and hereby is authorized and requested to program for construction, in accordance with the “Secondary Road Plan” and the State’s “Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges” the project described. Estimated Design Cost of Project: $66,700.00 Estimated Cost of Project: $1,250,000.00 STP Funds: $1,879,520.35 Local Funds (if needed to meet construction year): $0 Proposed Year of Construction: 2010 Vote of the Commissioners/Council: Yes_____ No_____ Dated at ____________, SD, this _____ day of ___________________, _______. CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk 50 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. 57 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 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. 7. Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Public Hearing: March 10th Pursuant to recent Council discussions, the City Attorney has prepared the attached ordinance regarding the regulation of ultimate fighting contests. The public hearing is scheduled for March 10th. 58 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 ORDINANCE NO. 05-09 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING MIXED MARTIAL ARTS (ULTIMATE FIGHTING) CONTESTS IN THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS: I. CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE III. MIXED MARTIAL ARTS (ULTIMATE FIGHTING) CONTESTS Section 10-1. Purpose of Regulation WHEREAS contests advertised as ultimate fighting, extreme fighting, no holds barred fighting, full contact fighting, cage fighting, mixed martial arts contests, ground or pound challenges, or tough man contests pose a substantial risk to the health of their participants unless such activities are controlled so that the activities conform to an explicit set of rules; and WHEREAS such fighting contests pose a substantial risk to the participant’s health and safety unless the contestants are equally matched in accordance to size, experience and proficiency; and WHEREAS South Dakota law authorizes municipalities to adopt ordinances to protect the health, welfare and safety of its residents as long as State or Federal legislation has not preempted the field; and WHEREAS the State of South Dakota does not regulate ultimate fighting, extreme fighting, no holds barred fighting, full contact fighting, cage fighting, mixed martial arts contests, ground or pound challenges, or tough man contests, and the United States government does not regulate any such activities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that: Section 10-2. Prohibition/Permit Required A. No person or other entity shall publicize or promote an ultimate fighting match to be conducted in the City of Brookings, South Dakota if the match has not been issued a permit by the City of Brookings. B. No person or other entity shall conduct or engage in an ultimate fighting match or contest within the corporate boundaries of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, unless such match has been permitted by the City of Brookings. 59 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 C. No ultimate fighting match or contest may be conducted within the corporate boundaries of the City of Brookings even if permitted unless the facility at which the contest or match is conducted or the promoter has insurance that will cover injuries to the participants in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per incident and the facility has a general liability policy and excess umbrella coverage totaling One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. Section 10-3. Permit A. Any person or other entity intending to conduct an ultimate fighting event, match or contest as defined in this ordinance must secure a permit at least ten (10) days prior to the event, match or contest. B. The person or entity seeking a permit to conduct an ultimate fight event, match or contest as defined in this ordinance must file an application with the Brookings City Clerk or such other person or department as the City Manager may designate from time to time. C. The following items must be submitted with the application: 1. The name and address of the person or persons or entity owning the facility in which the event, match or contest will be held. 2. The name and address of the person or persons promoting the event, match or contest. 3. Payment of the permit fee in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150). 4. A certification of insurance showing coverage for injuries to participants in an amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) per incident (Fighter Medical Insurance). 5. A certification of insurance showing the venue has a general liability insurance policy and/or umbrella liability policy totaling a minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per incident. 6. The name and address of the official or officials (referees) that will officiate the event, match or contest together with a copy of the official’s current license or certification issued by a sanctioning body. 7. A description of the security to be employed at the event, match or contest. 8. A list of the names of the medical staff to be present at the event, match or contest. At a minimum this staff must include a physician or licensed EMT. 9. A copy of the rules established by any nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning matches or contests either nationally or regionally, provided the region includes the State of South Dakota. Section 10-4. Required Rules Any event, match or contest must be conducted in accordance with all rules established by any nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning matches or contests either nationally or regionally, provided the region includes the State of South Dakota. The sanctioning 60 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 body must have adopted a set of rules governing the manner in which the matches or contests will be conducted and the sanctioning body must also have established licensed officials who supervise all sanctioned events. Section 10-5. Official/Referee The official/referee for any event, match or contest shall be certified by a national sanctioning body or a regional sanctioning body whose region includes the State of South Dakota. Section 10-6. Definitions A. Sanctioning Body. A sanctioning body is any nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning matches or contests either nationally or regionally, provided the region includes the State of South Dakota. The sanctioning body must have been in existence a minimum of five (5) years and be able to demonstrate that the sanctioning body has safely and successfully sanctioned ultimate fighting events for at least three (3) years. The sanctioning body must have adopted a set of rules governing the manner in which the matches or contests will be conducted and the sanctioning body must also have established licensed officials who supervise all sanctioned events. B. Serious Bodily Injury. An injury that creates a substantial risk of death or substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, unconsciousness, extreme pain, or permanent or protracted loss of the function of a bodily member or organ. C. Ultimate Fighting. Any activity, including but not limited to extreme fighting, no holds barred fighting, full contact fighting, cage fighting, mixed martial arts contests, ground or pound challenges, or tough man contests which do not allow or permit any of the following: 1. The use of anything that is not part of the human body to intentionally inflict serious bodily injury upon an opponent through direct contact or the expulsion of a projectile. 2. Striking a person who is unable to protect himself or herself from the advance of an opponent. 3. Allowing continued contact with a person who has been injured to a point where the person is unable to protect himself or herself or where continuing the contest or match exposes the person to substantial risk of further serious bodily injury. 4. Direct and forceful strikes to the eyes, groin, throat, neck or temporal area of the head unless such area is adequately protected to prevent injury. Section 10-7. Severability The invalidity of any portion of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of the ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 10-8. Revocation 61 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 A. The City Manager may revoke a permit required under this chapter at any time if information is obtained after the permit is issued from which the City Manager may reasonably conclude that the permit should have been denied. B. The City Manager may revoke the permit if it is found that: 1. The person, group, association, or body which had been authorized under the permit has deviated or will deviate from what was approved in the permit; 2. The contestants are violating the law or permit conditions; or 3. Other emergency conditions require the event to be terminated to protect public safety. Section 10-9. Penalty Any person or other entity who violates this ordinance may be fined up to Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each violation. Each match or contest conducted in violation of this ordinance constitutes a separate offense. II. All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: ______________________________________________ SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: ____________________________ PUBLISHED: __________________________________________________ CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA ATTEST: Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk 62 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Second Readings & Public Hearings: 8. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 19-09, a resolution to vacate Ninth Street from the west side of 14th Avenue to the Student Center Lane roadway on the SDSU Campus. Applicant: South Dakota State University Proposal: Eliminate a right-of-way that runs through the SDSU campus Background: - A records search of platting and right-of-way dedication in this area is sketchy. In 1931, Outlot 3 was platted and 15th Avenue was vacated north of 8th Street. In 1956 a portion of 9th Street, east of 14th Avenue was vacated but this right-of-way was south of the current 9th Street location. Three years later, lots were platted over the vacated 9th Street. These are lots 1 and 2, Amidon’s Addition. No other records were discovered prior to 1931. Specifics: This petition to vacate would establish a legal street vacation document. Therefore, any undiscovered plats that may show a street dedication in this area would be superseded. The approval of the street vacation should be subject to any right-of-way easements required by the City of Brookings or Brookings Municipal Utilities. Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the vacation subject to a right-of-way easement as stated in the Resolution. Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call City Manager Recommendation: Approve 63 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Prepared by: City Engineer’s Office 311 3rd Ave / PO Box 270 Brookings, SD 57006 Resolution No. 19-09 STREET VACATION WHEREAS, a petition to vacate has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Brookings, and WHEREAS, the petition was filed in proper form and signed by one hundred percent (100%) of the adjacent property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brookings: That the portion of 9th Street from the west right-of-line of 14th Avenue east 488 feet to the west edge of the Student Center Lane roadway on the SDSU Campus is hereby vacated subject to a right-of-way easement over the west 80 feet thereof. Passed and approved this 24th day of February 2009. __________________________ Mayor _______________________ City Clerk 64 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Prepared by: City Engineer’s Office 311 3rd Ave. / PO Box 270 Brookings, South Dakota 57006 RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT The undersigned, South Dakota State University, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto the City of Brookings, South Dakota, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee," a right-of-way easement for utility purposes, located on, under, over, through, upon and across the premises of Grantor, described as follows: The vacated portion of Ninth Street from the west right-of-line of Fourteenth Avenue to the east right-of-way line of Fourteenth Avenue thereby comprising the entire intersection of said streets all of the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota This easement constitutes a permanent and perpetual grant of right-of-way for use of the above-described property for utility purposes and is hereby dedicated to use by the Grantor for utility purposes, but such dedication shall not be construed to be a donation of the fee of such land. This Easement shall run with the above-described property for the purposes set forth herein. Grantee agrees to repair any damages that may result to the Grantor’s property by the construction, maintenance, replacement, repair or removal of the utilities located within this Easement. This Easement includes the right of ingress and egress, to install, construct, maintain, use, operate, repair, alter, inspect and replace all utilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor has executed this Easement this _____ day of ___________, 2009. South Dakota State University, Grantor By: _________________________________ Its: _______________________________ 65 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ) ss County of Brookings ) On this the ____ day of__________, 2009, before me, ____________________________, the undersigned officer, personally appeared _________________________, the ___________________________________________ of South Dakota State University, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the within and foregoing instrument on behalf of South Dakota State University, as the free act and deed of South Dakota State University. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. ___________________________________ Notary Public, State of South Dakota My Commission expires _____________________. 66 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 3, 2009 OFFICIAL MINUTES Chairperson David Kurtz called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were Al Gregg, Mike Cameron, Larry Fjeldos, Wayne Avery, Stacey Howlett, Al Heuton, and Kurtz. John Gustafson and Greg Fargen were absent. Also present were Brenda Schweitzer, Steve Rames, Community Development Director Mike Struck, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #1 – (Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the minutes from the January 6, 2009 meeting. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #2 – (Cameron/Fjeldos) Motion to approve the agenda. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #3 – John Moriarty has submitted a final plat of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 11, Parkdale Home Second Addition. (Cameron/Fjeldos) Motion to approve the plat. (Gregg/Cameron) Amendment to add “subject to Brookings Municipal Utilities easements”. All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED. The motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #4 – South Dakota State University has submitted a petition to vacate that portion of 9th Street from the west right-of-way line of 14th Avenue east 488 feet to the west edge of the Student Center Lane roadway. (Heuton/Fjeldos) Motion to approve the street vacation. (Cameron/Heuton) Amendment to the motion to add “subject to any right-of-way easements as required by Brookings Municipal Utilities”. All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED. The motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. Item #5 – (Fjeldos/Gregg) Motion to accept the 2008 Annual Report. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED. 70 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 The meeting was adjourned. _______________________ ________________________ Dan Hanson, Secretary David Kurtz, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator 71 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Planning Commission Brookings, South Dakota February 3, 2009 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Chairperson David Kurtz called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to order on February 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were Al Gregg, Mike Cameron, Larry Fjeldos, Wayne Avery, Stacey Howlett, Al Heuton, and Kurtz. John Gustafson and Greg Fargen were absent. Also present were Brenda Schweitzer, Steve Rames, Community Development Director Mike Struck, Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others. Item #3 – Hanson stated that the block with the proposed lots was platted 100 years ago. The plat contained three (3) lots within Block 11. Lots 2 and 3 were developed with houses and Lot 1 was a bare lot. A large portion of the block was in the floodway, and the remaining area was in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Item #4 – Hanson remarked that it was unknown whether or not 9th Street had ever been a dedicated right-of-way in this area. The petition would insure that 9th Street was vacated in the event a plat was discovered later that showed a right-of-way. Kurtz indicated that the vacation was a “clean-up issue”. Item #6 - Brenda Schweitzer, Executive Director of Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) presented a proposal for a new facility to house the BATA operation. The facility would be on 32nd Avenue across from the Swiftel Center. She stated that funding would come from the stimulus bill that was currently before Congress. Schweitzer stated that Brookings had experienced tremendous growth in public transportation and was one of two projects in the state that could receive funding. Their existing building was constructed four (4) years ago on county property, and they had already outgrown it. BATA provided several services such as demand response, job shuttles, and campus transportation. The proposed location would be near the interstate and Highway 14. The facility would have a mechanics shop, office, break room, and other accessory uses in addition to vehicle storage. Schweitzer felt the building could have an upgraded exterior that would match the aesthetics of the surrounding buildings. Heuton asked what the eave height would be on the new building. Steve Rames, BATA Board member, replied that the building would match the R&T Building. Heuton inquired if all the vehicles would be inside. Schweitzer replied yes. 72 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 Hanson summarized the land use options for the project. The proposal could be permitted as a parking facility in the B-5 District, rezoned to a B-4 District, or a zoning amendment for a public transportation facility use could be added to the B-5 District. He added that the B-5 District contained site plan requirements that would dictate the design of many aspects of the proposal. Cameron supported the project and a zoning amendment to the B-5 District. Kurtz felt a larger facility was needed for BATA, but a proper design was important. Fjeldos remarked that transportation hubs are usually centrally located, but the growth pattern of Brookings was away from this location. He felt the facility would function more as a garage. Schweitzer noted that once vehicles were dispatched, they remained at-large throughout the community. Therefore, a central location was not that important. Customers would not arrive at the facility like they would at a bus terminal. She added that 99% of their customers were based on demand/response. Rames noted that BATA was an on-demand service as opposed to a fixed route busing operation. Fjeldos asked if the operation was a not-for-profit function. Schweitzer replied yes. The meeting was adjourned. _______________________ ________________________ Dan Hanson, Secretary David Kurtz, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Administrator 73 City Council Packet February 24, 2009 74 9. Adjourn.