Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2009_03_24 CC PKT
1 Brookings City Council Tuesday, March 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. Presentation by First Planning District. 2. Presentation by Brookings Business-Civic Leadership Group on Early Care and Education on the Child Care Survey findings and related research. 3. Update on Bike Lane Project. 4. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. 5. Council Invites & Obligations. 6. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. * *Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required. 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. City Clerk records council attendance. 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve minutes. C. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. D. Action on Resolution No. 24-09, authorizing transfer of funds between loan funds for airport plow. E. Action on Resolution No. 25-09, appointing on election workers for April 14th municipal election. F. Action on bids for library coffee shop. G. Action on Resolution No. 26-09, Fixing Time and Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites). 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. 2 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. 06-09: Budget Amendment, An ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2009 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. Second reading - April 7th 8. Ordinance No. 07-09: Hospital Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 42-94 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the hospital board of trustees in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 9. Ordinance No. 08-09: Utility Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 86-43 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the utility board in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 10. Ordinance No. 09-09: Swiftel Center Advisory Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending Section 2-183 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the swiftel center advisory committee in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Second Readings/Public Hearings: 11. TABLED - Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call Request public comment, roll call Other Business: 12 Update on BATA transportation facility lease agreement. Action: Informational 13. Discussion regarding Residential Wind Energy. Action: Informational 3 14. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County establishing a Rail Authority. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on Storm Water prioritized project list and discussion of land acquisition, funding and design. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 16. 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. 4 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION ** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics. 1. Presentation by First Planning District. Todd Kays, Executive Director, First District Association of Local Governments will provide an update on First District’s activities and respond to questions. Estimated Time: 15 minutes 2.e. Attach list of economic development initiatives in 2.a. Identify the sources of funding for each initiative, specify EDA, state, local, or other federal agencies. 1 - Community Development Block Grant 5 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Consolidated Water & Natural Resources Grants 5 - SD Department of Transportation Community Access Road Grants 3 - Department of Homeland Security Fire Department Grants 4 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Small City Planning Grant 3 - Rural Development Water and Sewer Loan/Grant 9 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources State Water Plan 2 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Clean Water State Revolving Loans 2 - SD Game Fish and Parks Recreational Trails Grant 3 - HUD Economic Development Initiative Grant 2 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Solid Waste Program 1 - State and Tribal Assistance Grant 1 - Economic Development Administration 8 - Private Company Funds 1 - Community Development Block Grant ($7,000,000) • Sisseton ($7,000,000) 5 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Consolidated Water & Natural Resources Grants ($1,498,000) • Clark ($63,000) • Elkton ($435,000) • Lake Poinsette Sanitary Sewer District ($300,000) • Madison ($500,000) • Big Sioux Community Water System ($200,000) 5 – SD Department of Transportation Community Access Road Grants ($1,491,904) • Arlington ($381,700) • Bushnell ($13,204) • DeSmet ($400,000) • Howard ($360,000) • Wentworth ($337,000) 3 – Department of Homeland Security Fire Department Grants ($224,771) • Iroquois ($73,456) • Sisseton ($68,740) • Wentworth ($82,575) 4 – SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Small City Planning Grant ($28,000) • Summit ($8,000) • Colman ($6,000) • Colman ($8,000) • Ramona ($6,000) 3 – Rural Development Water and Sewer Loan/Grant ($641,500) • Gary ($110,000) • Gary ($432,500) • Canova ($99,000) 9 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources State Water Plan ($20,159,710) • Arlington ($579,000) • Brookings ($3,830,850) • Clark ($63,000) • Canova ($260,000) • Elkton ($434,305) • Lake Poinsette Sanitary District ($3,075,000) • Rosholt ($1,675,000) • Summit ($1,042,555) • Watertown ($9,200,000) 2 - SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Clean Water State Revolving Loans ($7,124,620) • Lake Poinsette Sanitary Sewer District ($1,094,700) • Madison ($6,029,920) 2 - SD Game Fish and Parks Recreational Trails Grant ($64,796) • Grant County ($35,998) • Watertown ($28,798) 3 – HUD Economic Development Initiative Grant ($1,049,000) • Watertown - Uptown Revitalization ($196,000) • Brookings – Uptown Revitalization ($357,000) • Brookings – Innovation Campus ($496,000) 2- SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources Solid Waste Program ($623,550) • Madison ($186,650) • Roberts County ($436,900) 1 - State and Tribal Assistance Grant ($900,000) • Lake Norden – ($900,000) 1 – Economic Development Administration ($2,500,000) • Brookings ($2,500,000) 8 - Private Company Funds ($1,158,630) • Watertown – ($236,000) • Watertown – ($89,270) • Sisseton - ($250,000) • Watertown - ($178,000) • Watertown - ($188,000) • Watertown - ($150,000) • Hayti - ($37,834) • Lake Preston - ($29,526) Other Local Tax Dollars/User Fees • South Dakota One Call ($50,000) • Grant County Parcel Map ($22,763) • Grant County Hazmat ($3,500) • Grant County Web Mapping ($6,500) • Codington IMS ($14,400) • 911 Database Management ($18,300) • City of White Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Update ($5,000) • Codington County Zoning Officer ($22,680) • Watertown Land Use Survey ($14,400) • Watertown GIS Services ($10,040) • Lake County Inspector Services ($2,150) • Big Stone City Housing Study ($3,000) • Summit Annexation Maps • Ag United Consulting • South Dakota Planners Association Annual Conference • Personnel policy questions • DeSmet Housing/TIF project • Watertown Land Development Forum • Numerous questions from cities on financing • Numerous questions from cities and counties regarding zoning and subdivision ordinance administration • Numerous technical assistance/information requests regarding census, maps, federal and state programs, etc. (Combination of local tax dollars/user fees, and some individual requests) District Wide Activities EDA Work Activities: $24,477,504 (Total work activities excluding State Water Plans) Return on Investment (Dues): $128.04 Grants Awarded: $5,334,476 Return on Investment (Dues): $27.90 Loans Awarded: $7,766,120 Return on Investment (Dues): $40.62 Grants and Loans Awarded: $13,100,596 Return on Investment (Dues): $68.52 Brookings County Activities Brookings • Received $357,000 HUD Economic Development Initiative Grant – Streetscape Project • Received $496,000 HUD Economic Development Initiative Grant – Innovation Campus Phase 1 Infrastructure • Received $2,500,000 Economic Development Administration Grant – Innovation Campus Elkton • Submitted State Water Plan and SDDENR Consolidated Grant Applications – lagoon Project ($435,000) White • Completed Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance Miscellaneous • Planning & Zoning Administration assistance: Aurora, Elkton, White, & Brookings County • Participant of I-29 Corridor Initiative Committee • Attend monthly Brookings County Planning Commission meetings Grants Awarded to City of Brookings – 2008 : $3,353,000 Return on Investment (Based upon City of Brookings 2008 dues): $568.65 10 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. Presentation by Brookings Business-Civic Leadership Group on Early Care and Education on the Child Care Survey findings and related research. Gail Bultman, SDSU Family Resource Network Coordinator, will present survey findings and related research on local child care issues on behalf of the Brookings Business Civic Leadership Group. She will also provide the Group’s recommendations on this issue. ENCLOSURES: 1) PowerPoint Presentation 2) Brookings Ordinances related to child care facilities Estimated Time: 15 minutes 16 ARTICLE V. FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES* *Cross references: Businesses, ch. 26. State law references: Children's homes and welfare agencies, SDCL 26-6-1 et seq. Sec. 42-211. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Documented fire drills means a fire drill wherein the date of the fire drill is recorded, and such record is retained for at least one year. Exposed electrical wiring means any electrical wiring that may cause a shock by allowing access directly to the wire. Examples are missing outlet or switch cover plates, open junction boxes, covers which are off of fuse or circuit-breaker boxes. Family day care means the providing of group care and supervision of children on a regular basis for part of a day as a supplement to regular parental care, with or without compensation, as a supplement to regular parental care, including children under the age of six living in the home and children from more than one unrelated family received for day care. Family day care home means the private residence wherein day care is provided. Heating units means any device capable of producing heat for the purposes of maintaining a comfortable temperature inside a building except radiators, hot-air heating vents and electrical heaters. Examples are wood-burning stoves or fireplaces, propane heaters or fuel-oil heaters. Helper means a person who assists the provider in the family day care home. Inaccessible to children means any device or means used to make entrance by children extremely difficult. Examples are latches, locks, high cabinets out of the reach of children, safety screw caps on bottles, etc. Provider means the principal caretaker of children in a family day care home. Substitute means a person who fills in for the normal provider on a consistent weekly basis. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-65, 3-27-2000) Cross references: Definitions generally, § 1-2. Sec. 42-212. Exit requirements. (a) Each level of the family day care home used for the care of children shall have at least two exits which are separate and remote from each other. Each of these exits must provide 17 unobstructed travel to the outside. One of these exits shall be a door at least six feet, eight inches high by 32 inches wide. The other exit may be a window or door which is easy to open from the inside without the use of tools. (b) A window used as an exit in a family day care home shall provide a clear opening at least large enough for a firefighter to enter. There may be no more than 44 inches between the floor and the bottom of such window. (c) A door or window to the outside may be used in a basement as a primary and secondary means of egress as long as each exit provides a clear opening at least large enough for a firefighter to enter. There may be no more than 44 inches between the floor of the basement and the bottom of such window. This provision shall supersede and preempt any provision of the fire code which may establish a belowground exit. (d) The vertical travel requirement regarding egress from a basement and the provisions prohibiting location of a day care facility below ground level as maybe set forth in the fire code shall not apply as long as the egress from such belowground facility otherwise complies with this article and the fire code adopted by the city. (e) If storm windows, screens or burglar guards are used, they must be provided with quick- opening devices which may be easily opened from the inside. (f) No room or space may be occupied for living or sleeping purposes which is accessible only by a ladder, by folding stairs or through a trapdoor. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-66, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-213. Fire drills. The family day care home shall have a posted evacuation plan and shall conduct at least four documented fire drills each year. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-67, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-214. Smoke detectors. A family day care home shall be equipped with at least one Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL)-approved smoke detector on each level of the building and in each bedroom or nap area that is used for day care purposes. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-68, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-215. Heating units. Unvented fuel-fired room heaters shall not be used. A guard must be provided to protect the children from any hot surface and from open flames. 18 (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-69, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-216. Emblem. A family day care emblem provided by the fire department shall be posted on the main entry of all family day care homes. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-70, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-217. Safety caps for electrical outlets. In family day care homes caring for children aged four years and younger, unused electrical outlets shall be covered by Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL)-approved electrical safety caps. There shall be no bare or exposed electrical wires present within the family day care homes. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-71, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-218. Fire extinguishers. An ABC multipurpose Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL)-approved fire extinguisher shall be mounted and maintained on each level of the home used for family day care. The location of such fire extinguisher shall be included as a part of the evacuation plan. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-72, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-219. Health standards and first aid. (a) Each family day care provider, substitute and helper shall have a tuberculin skin test prior to contact with children. Individuals who show no reaction to the test at the time of testing are exempt from further tuberculin testing. A copy of the tuberculin test reports shall be kept in the family day care provider's file. (b) When a child is enrolled in a family day care home, the family day care provider shall require from the child's parent or guardian documentation from a licensed physician, physician's assistant or county health nurse showing the health and immunization status of the child. Minimum age-specific immunization levels for children attending family day care homes are: (1) Three to five months, one dose DPT and one dose polio; (2) Five to seven months, two doses DPT and two doses polio; (3) Seven to 16 months, three doses DPT and two doses polio; (4) Sixteen to 19 months, three doses DPT and two doses polio and measles, mumps and rubella; (5) Nineteen months and older, four doses DPT and three doses polio and measles, mumps and rubella. 19 (c) A child is exempt from meeting the minimum age-specific immunization levels if the child has certification from a licensed physician stating that the physical condition of the child is such that a test or immunization would endanger the child's life or health or if the child has a written statement signed by a parent or guardian that the child is an adherent to a religious doctrine whose teachings are opposed to such tests and immunizations. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-73, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-220. Poisons. Hazardous cleaning solutions, chemicals, poisons and other dangerous substances shall be labeled and shall be inaccessible to children. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-74, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-221. Door locks and latches. Every closet door latch shall be such that children can open the door from the inside of the closet. Every bathroom door lock shall be designed to permit opening of the locked door from the outside in an emergency. The opening device shall be readily accessible to the staff of the family day care home. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-75, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-222. Dangerous items. Firearms shall be unloaded, and firearms and ammunition shall be stored separately in locked storage. All sharp kitchen utensils, matches and lighters shall be inaccessible to children. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-76, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-223. Medications. Medications shall only be administered with the written or oral consent of a parent or guardian. Medications shall be kept in their original container with the original label. The label shall contain legible directions for use and the expiration date. Prescription medications shall also include the child's name and the physician's name. Medications shall be stored in a place which is inaccessible to children. Medications requiring refrigeration shall then be placed in another container which is nonabsorbent and labeled "medication." (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-77, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-224. Food. Frozen meat shall not be thawed at room temperature. Perishable food shall be kept refrigerated except for short periods of preparation and serving. 20 (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-78, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-225. Outside playground area. (a) Under three years of age. Children under three years of age shall be directly supervised at all times by a qualified staff member when they are outdoors with or without a fenced area except that a written consent form signed by a parent or guardian shall permit a child who is at least two years old to be supervised from inside the family day care home as long as such child is in a qualified staff person's line of sight, and such child remains in a fenced area. (b) Three to five years of age. (1) Children who are three through five years of age shall be directly supervised when outdoors when there is no fence except a written consent form signed by a parent shall permit children who are three through five years of age to play outdoors without a fence as long as the children are supervised from within the family day care home and as long as the children are in a qualified staff person's line of sight. (2) Children who are three through five years of age may play in a fenced area and be supervised from within the family day care home as long as the children are in a qualified staff person's line of sight. With written consent signed by a parent or guardian, children who are three through five years of age may play in a fenced area without being in a qualified staff person's line of sight. (c) Six years of age or older. Children who are six years of age and older and are outdoors may be supervised from inside the family day care home with the written consent of a parent as long as the children are in a qualified staff person's line of sight. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-79, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-226. Insect and rodent control. A family day care provider shall take effective measures to minimize the presence of rodents and insects on the premises. Doors and windows used for outside ventilation shall be screened. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-80, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-227. Water and sewer. The water supply shall be derived from a public water system or from a system approved by the state department of environment and natural resources. Sewage must be disposed of by means of a public sewer disposal system or a septic system. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-81, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-228. Qualifications of providers. 21 All family day care providers shall be able to show proof that they have been self-screened against the state's central registry. All family day care providers shall be at least 18 years of age, and they shall not have a substantiated record of child abuse or neglect. Family members or any other individual who is living in the family day care home shall not have a substantiated record of child abuse or neglect. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-82, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-229. Qualifications of substitutes. All substitutes shall be able to show proof that they have been self-screened against the state's central registry. All substitutes shall be at least 18 years of age and shall not have a substantiated record of child abuse or neglect. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-83, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-230. Qualifications of helpers. Individuals who are used to meet the staff/child ratio shall be at least 14 years of age and may assist with the care of children. They may be used as a helper when more than four children who are under the age of two years are present. An individual who is under the age of 18 years shall not be left alone on the premises with children in care. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-84, 3-27-2000) Sec. 42-231. Child/staff ratio. (a) A family day care provider shall care for a maximum of 12 children, including the family day care providers own children who are under the age of six years. No more than four of the 12 children shall be under the age of two years unless there is a helper in the family day care home. Under either of the following conditions, a family day care home may provide care for a maximum of two additional children in addition to the foregoing maximum of 12: (1) The additional children may be either school age and in care before and after school; or (2) The additional children may be in care because of a family emergency or other special circumstances. (b) Any additional children who are under the age of two years and in care because of a family emergency or other special circumstance shall be included in the maximum number of children allowed who are under the age to two and may necessitate the use of a helper. (c) This section shall supersede and preempt any provision of the Uniform Fire Code which may establish staff-to-child ratios. (Ord. No. 7-00, § 18-85, 3-27-2000) State law references: Staff to child ratios, SDCL 26-6-15.1. 22 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. Bike Lane Update. SDSU students Chris Daugaard and Eric Hanson along with Park, Recreation, and Forestry Director Allyn Frerichs and City Engineer Jackie Lanning have met throughout the winter to review the Phase I SDSU Bike Route proposal. The draft bike route map shows the locations that would be best suited for a bike route, showing essentially three options for bike routes: • Sharrow: stencil and signage • Shared parking/bike lane: stencil, signage, striped bike lane (keep parking) **(this is no longer an option because the streets are too narrow – see below) • Exclusive bike lane: stencil, signage, striped bike lane (remove parking) The minimum width needed for striped bike lanes is 30 feet, and many of the streets in Brookings are too narrow for striped bike lanes. The streets that are too narrow would have the option of being a “sharrow”. On the streets that are wider, striping a bike lane would be an option. The streets could be striped with a four foot bike lane, which would leave eleven foot driving lanes for a thirty foot wide street. The streets with a striped bike lane could be designated as an “exclusive bike lane” where parking would be removed. Since the March 10th memo, we have discovered that the four foot bike lane designated as a “shared parking/bike lane” where parking would remain would not be an option because the streets are too narrow to accommodate the proper width of the lanes. The Sioux Falls bike route coordinator, Sam Trebelcock, indicated that the “shared parking/bike lane” width is typically 7 or 8 feet wide to accommodate the width of a car. The map has been updated to eliminate this option because the streets are too narrow. Dean Kattleman from SDSU indicated one option could be to make 13th Avenue a north-bound one-way street from 6th Street to 8th Street and to make 12th Avenue a south-bound one-way street from 6th Street to 8th Street. City staff has not explored this option, but it is mentioned in this memo to gage the interest of this option. The staff will be presenting a draft route for the SDSU area for the work session. The discussion will entail possible removal of parking, future public hearings, and other issues that people may have. An estimated project cost will be calculated after the route has been approved. Estimated Time: 30 minutes March 2007 M n/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual Chapter 4: On-Road Bikeways 97 3.6 - 4.2 m (12 - 14 ft) travel lane Optional: Install Share the Road signs to warn drivers to watch for bicyclists traveling along the road in rural situations where there is no paved shoulder and a large number of bicycles use the roadway. Space signs every 1.6 - 3.2 km (1 - 2 mi) and/or on corners, hills, or other places with limited sight distances. #W11-1 & W16-1 S H A R E T H E R O A D S H A R E T H E R O A D Curb & Gutter ** Not to Scale ** CL Note: Application of MN MUTCD Series R7 and/or R8 “NO PARKING” signage may also be appropriate. Check current MN MUTCD for any changes to signs and striping configurations. Curb & Gutter Figure 4-24: Shared Lane,Urban Cross Section w ith N o P a rk ing 12 March 2007 M n/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual Chapter 4: On-Road Bikeways 79 1.2 m (4 ft) bike lane 3.6 m (12 ft) travel lane (typical) 0.3 m (1 ft) CL Curb & Gutter Bike Lane Stripe Pavement marking line 100 mm (4 in) wide solid white Bike Lane Symbol & Arrow Pre-cut plastic or stencil pavement markings LANE 1.8 m (6 ft) 1.2 m (4 ft) Note: Application of MN MUTCD Series R7-9 or R7-9a “NO PARKING BIKE LANE” signage may be used. Check current MN MUTCD for any changes to signs and striping configurations. ** Not to Scale ** Curb & Gutter 1.8 m (6 ft) 1.2 m (4 ft) 1.8 m (6 ft) * See Table 4-1 for bicycle lane width #R3-17 #R8-3a Install #R3-17 signs and pavement symbols at periodic intervals along the bicycle lane BIKE LANE BIKE LANE Figure 4-10: Bicycle Lane w ith N o P a rk ing and Standard Gutter Pan 10 26 (Excerpt from City of Sioux Falls Website): City of Sioux Falls Shared Parking and Bicycle Lanes In May of this year, on-street shared parking and bicycle lanes have been painted on the following three city streets. 1. Bahnson Avenue from 12th to 26th Streets and from 33rd to 49th Streets 2. West 32nd Streets from Marion Road to Sertoma Avenue 3. Ralph Rogers Road from Minnesota Avenue to 69th Street 27 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. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. 1. Call to order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. City Clerk records council attendance. 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve minutes. C. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. D. Action on Resolution No. 24-09, authorizing transfer of funds between loan funds for airport plow. E. Action on Resolution No. 25-09, appointing on election workers for April 14th municipal election. F. Action on bids for library coffee shop. G. Action on Resolution No. 26-09, Fixing Time and Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites). 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. 06-09: Budget Amendment, An ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2009 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. Second reading - April 7th 8. Ordinance No. 07-09: Hospital Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 42-94 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the hospital board of trustees in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 9. Ordinance No. 08-09: Utility Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 86-43 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the utility board in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 10. Ordinance No. 09-09: Swiftel Center Advisory Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending Section 2-183 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the swiftel center advisory committee in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Second Readings/Public Hearings: 11. TABLED - Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call …. Request public comment, roll call Other Business: 12 Update on BATA transportation facility lease agreement. Action: Informational 13. Discussion regarding Residential Wind Energy. Action: Informational 14. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County establishing a Rail Authority. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on Storm Water prioritized project list and discussion of land acquisition, funding and design. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 16. Adjourn. 28 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. Council Invites & Obligations March 24th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers March 25 & 26 2009 SD Airports Conference 10:00 a.m. Aberdeen Ramkota March 31 Brookings County Annual Feed 5:30 p.m. City Fire Hall April 1 SDML District 2 Meeting 6:00 p.m. White – McKnight Community Center April 7th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers April 14 Election April 16th City Council Meeting – Canvass Ballot 5:00pm City Hall Meeting Room April 19th Spring Diversity Potluck Sponsored by Human Rights Committee Old Sanctuary April 27th Joint City Council & Hospital Board 5:00 p.m. Hospital April 28th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers May 12th Reception for Munsterman & Brunner 4:00 pm City Hall Community Room May 12th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers May 26th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers June 9th City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers June 23rd City Council Meeting 5 & 6 pm City Hall Chambers 29 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION ** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics. 6. 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. 30 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 approve minutes. C. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. D. Action on Resolution No. 24-09, authorizing transfer of funds between loan funds for airport plow. E. Action on Resolution No. 25-09, appointing on election workers for April 14th municipal election. F. Action on bids for library coffee shop. G. Action on Resolution No. 26-09, Fixing Time and Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites). 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. 06-09: Budget Amendment, An ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2009 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. Second reading - April 7th 8. Ordinance No. 07-09: Hospital Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 42-94 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the hospital board of trustees in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 9. Ordinance No. 08-09: Utility Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 86-43 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the utility board in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th 10. Ordinance No. 09-09: Swiftel Center Advisory Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending Section 2-183 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the swiftel center advisory committee in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Second Readings/Public Hearings: 11. TABLED - Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call …. Request public comment, roll call Other Business: 12 Update on BATA transportation facility lease agreement. Action: Informational 13. Discussion regarding Residential Wind Energy. Action: Informational 14. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County establishing a Rail Authority. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 15. Discussion and possible action on Storm Water prioritized project list and discussion of land acquisition, funding and design. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 16. Adjourn. 31 CONSENT AGENDA #4 4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items * A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve minutes. C. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. D. Action on Resolution No. 24-09, authorizing transfer of funds between loan funds for airport plow. E. Action on Resolution No. 25-09, appointing on election workers for April 14th municipal election. F. Action on bids for library coffee shop. G. Action on Resolution No. 26-09, Fixing Time and Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites). Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call City Manager Recommendation: Approve 32 CONSENT Agenda: B. Action to approve minutes. Minutes from the February 24th and March 10th City Council meeting are enclosed for Council review and action. 33 Brookings City Council February 24, 2009 The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, Mike McClemans, Mike Bartley and Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. Storm Drainage Plan Updates. City Engineer Jackie Lanning and Assistant City Engineer Thad Drietz reviewed and discussed the Project Prioritization Procedure and presented the Preliminary Prioritization Results. The Prioritization Process Development defines the problem areas, determines potential solutions, estimates the costs, categorizes the criteria to be used when assessing the pros and cons of each project, determines a ‘weight’ that each category will carry, scores each project on a scale of 0 to 5 in each of the categories, multiplies the individual scores by the weight of each category, totals the scores for each project, and ranks the projects by the total score. Eight ranking criteria categories were presented at the last presentation. After public discussion, one new category was added and one category was split into two. The 10 Project Ranking Categories include: potential environmental impact, number of buildings affected, occupant evacuation, property damage (new), traffic impacts, location in basin, cost versus budget, reduced maintenance issues, infrastructure age/condition and citizen safety. The method of ranking the ranking categories includes a review if the category poses an immediate threat to life and safety, the extent of the threat and if the threat is immediate. The criteria scoring system assigns scores of 0 to 5 in each category for each project’s goal. A score of zero (0) typically means the project’s goal has no impact on that category. A zero is also assigned when the project does not provide a benefit in that particular category. A score of five (5) means the project’s goal is most consistent with the category definition or key points of the category. Weight is a factor assigned to a category from 0.1 to 1.0 or greater. It is related to life and safety and is independent of the project. Each category’s weight is the same for all projects. Score is a number assigned to a project from a 0 to 5 scale. It is related to the project’s goal and its applicability to the category being scored. A score is assigned in each category for each project. Each project will have 10 scores because there are 10 categories. Weight is based on safety. Score is based on applicability of the project’s goal. In reviewing the category of potential environmental impact the weight considerations have no immediate effects on life and safety but could have long-term effects. The recommendation is 0.4. Scoring considerations consider the potential environmental impact of the project. No change would receive the highest score. Improvement may also score fairly high. The highest potential for environmental impact would receive the lowest score. 34 The weight considerations for buildings affected include minimal flash flood effects in Brookings. Threat is generally predictable during a flood. Mid to long term effects on building safety. The recommendation is 0.7. The scoring considerations include the number of buildings potentially in contact with flood waters. A score of zero (0) would be assigned to projects that do not change the number of buildings affected. The weighting considerations for occupant evacuation include predictability of the need for evacuations (night vs. day). Evacuation is a response to an immediate threat. The recommendation is 0.9. Scoring considerations include the number of occupants that would require evacuation and evacuation logistics (accessibility and population density). The weighting considerations for property damage include no immediate threat to life and safety and potential health effects due to water damage. The recommendation is 0.5. The scoring considerations include personal property and valuables, parked vehicles, property value and potential lost revenue. The weighting considerations for traffic impact include no immediate threat to life and safety. The danger is typically observable and avoidable. Flooded streets can hamper emergency response efforts. The recommendation is 0.7. Scoring considerations include if alternate routes are available and if the flooded street isolates people. The weighting considerations for location in basin include incorrect sequencing can create new safety hazards either upstream or downstream of the project. The recommendation is 0.9. Scoring considerations include detention projects should be constructed before increasing downstream flow capacity (upstream first); projects which increase flow capacity should begin at the downstream end; detention projects towards the populous center of the city will benefit more residents. Cost vs. budget is a one-dimensional criterion (no safety issue). Since money is the driving force for the whole prioritization process, category weight is high. The recommendation is 1.0. Scoring considerations include the city should strive to accomplish as much as possible within a given budget. Inexpensive projects with lower priority could be moved up in the prioritization list. Lowest scores are assigned to projects with the highest costs. Highest scores are assigned to projects with the lowest scores. Project construction that can be ‘phased’ will score higher. Each construction phase must provide a standalone benefit. The weighting considerations for reduced maintenance issues include no immediate threat to life and safety and unmaintained features can create a hazard. The recommendation is 0.4. The scoring considerations review if the project reduces the maintenance that is presently required. A score of zero (0) means no change. The weighting considerations for infrastructure age include aging drainage structures could have failure potential, but not likely to cause an immediate threat to life and safety. The recommendation is 0.5. The scoring considerations review only the structures that would be replaced by the project, the structure’s remaining useful life and if there is imminent danger of structural failure. 35 Citizen safety directly deals with life and safety of pedestrians, bystanders, etc. The recommendation is 1.2. Scoring considerations include how quickly the threat develops, if there is ample warning for citizens to avoid the threat and if the project actually reduces the threat potential. Future re-evaluation of project rankings include: some projects can dramatically change the city’s hydrology, some projects can affect other projects either upstream or downstream, new storm management techniques and technologies are always being developed. For these reasons, the project prioritization list will tend to shuffle when re-evaluation takes places. The list should be re- evaluated on an annual basis. Detention projects construction before downstream flow capacity… problem area too much flow downstream and didn’t do detention and just upsized. Other end would receive same amount of water but at a high rate. Like a regulator. Discussion: Staff requested Council consensus on the weighting and guidelines portion of process. ACTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to adopt the drainage project prioritization spreadsheet. Corrections were noted in the packet: Buildings rated at 0.70, property damage at 0.50 and occupants at 0.90. Discussion: There was Council and citizen discussion regarding building categories verses occupants affected and the weighting factors. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried. The presentation and results will be posted on the city website on February 25th. BATA Relocation. City Manager Weldon reported that 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. Weldon said the purpose of having this agenda was to assess the Council’s level of interest in this project, and give staff direction if you wish to pursue the idea. The Council evaluated the merits of the proposed locations asking Schweitzer for input on specifics as to logistics, access to the interstate, funding, park & ride options, size requirements, shuttle options, proximity to other amenities, infrastructure needs, coordination with SDSU’s needs, other location options in addition to those listed above, possible land swap options, and BATA’s long term expansion needs. The final discussion related to timing in that BATA would need commitments very soon to meet the funding deadlines. 36 The Council directed the City Manager to check into other land options in the Telkamp Industrial Addition including initiating discussion with the 4H organization regarding the riding arena area and to review options at the March 10th meeting. 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to approve the agenda with the above amendments, which included: A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Bids. Action to award bids for Fire Department Equipment 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, and 15 - Technical Rescue/light-weight USAR, Full Brim w/4-point suspension to M&T Fire & Safety, Volga, SD for $24,714.00. No other bids were received. C. Bids. Action to award bid for 6F1 Command Vehicle, 2009 ¾ Ton 4x4 Truck, to Einspahr Auto Plaza Inc, Brookings, for $33,390. No other bids were received. D. Action to renew a joint City/School Facility Agreement. 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 37 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. • 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. E. Action to approve Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreement format. Liquor Operating Agreement For Restaurant Establishments 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: 38 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 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 39 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. 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. 40 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. 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. 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. 41 F. Action on Resolution No. 13-09, a Resolution Establishing a Fee For Tax Increment Financing Applications. 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. 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. 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. H. Action on Resolution No. 15-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project. Resolution No. 15-09 42 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. I. Action on Resolution No. 16-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance & Overlay Project. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 43 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 Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call Ordinance No. 05-09: First reading was held on Ordinance No. 05-09, an ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Public Hearing: March 10th Resolution No. 19-09 – Street Vacation. Public hearing was held 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. Hearing: Terri Veen, SDSU employee, objected to the street vacation. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to approve Res. 19-09. All present voted yes; motion carried. 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. Adjourn. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. CITY OF BROOKINGS Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk 44 Brookings City Council March 10, 2009 The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed (arrived 5:14 p.m.), Mike McClemans, Tom Bezdichek, and Mike Bartley. Acting City Manager Jackie Lanning, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. Board of Equalization Hearing Process Overview. Joyce Dragseth, Director of Equalization, provided an orientation to the Council regarding the hearing process. The Equalization Office sent out the property valuation cards on March 1st to city residents. If a property owner plans to appeal the valuation of his or her property they must do so by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 12th, with the City Clerk. The Local Board of Equalization, consisting of at least four City Council members and one School Board member, must conduct their hearings between Monday, March 16 and Friday, March 20. She is anticipating a light schedule. Her office staff studied the 2008 real estate sales taking the market and values into account, but their evaluations are a year in arrears. Estimated growth in 2009 is $49 million for a total of $974 million. (Reed arrived at 5:14 p.m.) No action was taken. Update on Bike Lane Project. Rescheduled to March 24th at 5:00 p.m. City Council members serving as ex-officios members on city boards. Lanning gave the following introduction on behalf of the City Manager. She noted that the Council has considered re-appointing city council members as liaisons to the Hospital Board of Trustees, Brookings Municipal Utility Board, and Swiftel Center Advisory Board. Historically, the governing body had this system in place under the previous form of government. By council action, the City Manager was designated to serve in an ex-officio capacity to these three respective boards. These actions were as follows: Hospital Board, Ord. 27-05, August 26, 2005; Utility Board, Ord. 26-05, August 30, 2005 and Swiftel Center Advisory Committee, Res. No. 65-05, August 9, 2005. Frequently, the City Manager has attended these meetings although has not been able to attend all of them due to scheduling conflicts. He does usually forward copies of meeting minutes, financial statements, and other items of interest to the Council to keep informed. If the Council wishes to re-instate the liaison function, action will be needed to repeal Ordinances 26-05 and 27-05; and a motion that repeals Resolution 65-05. Council members would then be appointed pursuant to the normal appointment process. The Hospital Board meets the 4th Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the Hospital. The BMU Board meets the 2nd Monday of each month at 1:00 p.m. at the BMU office. The Swiftel Advisory Board meets the last Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m. at the Swiftel Center. The Hospital and BMU are operating boards while the Swiftel Center is an advisory board. Discussion: Reed, Bezdichek, Munsterman, McClemans and Whaley expressed a desire to re-instate ex- officios for the three groups cited above because they felt it was informative for the members and for the boards. Rotating to different boards gave an opportunity to learn about the different boards. When appointed as an ex-officio, there’s more likelihood to attend. 45 Bartley said the reason why these changes were made in 2000 and again in 2005 was because it didn’t fit within this form of government power and structure. All council members have the same rights, voting privileges and ability to attend any meeting. Under this form of government, all the Council members should know what is going on and this format puts a power structure in place for two people. He cited the recent Hospital issue as an example and questioned if Council members had been assigned to that board would he have continued to ask those questions. Council ex-officios on the hospital board may have usurped his power to ask those questions. He also noted that most of the work and decision making occurs at the executive committee and subcommittee levels and not at the monthly Board meeting. The city manager doesn’t attend those meetings either, so there’s not a true picture of the operations. With respect to Utility Board, it was clarified that the ex-officio members attended the monthly meeting and the monthly teleconference. Bartley noted that the City Council’s communications with BMU have greatly improved, due in part to the change in their CEO. Bartley said he doesn’t see a need to go back to the old process and noted that there will be two and possibly three new members in May and he recommended waiting until the new members were seated to get their opinions. Bartley noted that the City Charter and this form of government was not meant to give anyone any special power of going to any particular meetings. Munsterman then questioned if the City Council should not have Council representatives on the BEDC, Growth Partnership Board, or local planning district. He asked the City Attorney if the City Charter restricts the Council from serving as ex-officios. Britzman said no. Munsterman said when it comes down to decision making on the boards, in terms of executive decisions and strategy sessions, that the ex-officio’s aren’t participating in, there aren’t decisions made in those meetings. The issues are brought back to the board for discussion and action. He acknowledged understanding Bartley’s points, but what supersedes is the communication and representation and the Council has to look at that value of that communication and representation and what it brings to this decision making body. There’s a certain trust factor that goes with the Mayor making an appointment of a council member to a board to represent our interests. Bartley said he didn’t disagree, but he thinks the BEDC, Growth Partnership and District Planning Board are different because the Council member has a vote and are not ex-officios. The City funds those organizations and city representative votes the city’s vote. He feels that’s different than an ex-officio on the Utility or Hospital Board, which the City owns, but doesn’t fund. Munsterman said Bartley’s argument is the ex-officio has more information than anyone else. In the position of the BEDC, he commented that Bartley has more information than the rest of the Council. Bartley said that was true, but the City doesn’t own those organizations and he didn’t feel this was an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. 46 Brunner commented that he is going off the council, but would like to hear from those having previously served in that role. However, he did note that he worries about consistency with the on and off again approach to the issue. Whaley, having served on the Hospital Board, found it informative and that it made Council members aware of the issues. It gave her the ability to ask other members to get their opinion about issues. She noted that the ex-officios weren’t involved in the decision making process. They attended only to learn what was going on. Reed felt the process worked and there’s been more issues in recent years because the Council hasn’t been there. With respect to the discussion on power; if information becomes power on this Council, we’ll get into trouble. He feels the group worked together sharing information and to keep communicating. He said in his future role he would rotate members on boards and would place new members with long-time members. It’s a good learning ground to understand more about utility and hospital operations. He recalled there were issues whether or not one or both ex-officios could attend executive sessions. Britzman said each board would need to be reviewed again separately because they are governed by different laws. He has researched the issue in the past, but a fresh review is warranted. Bartley liken the Swiftel Center Board to the Park and Recreation Board as advisory board and part of the City budget now and questioned if the Council needs someone seated on that Board. He asked if the Council was going to appoint Council members to all the advisory board. ACTION: A motion was made by Bezdichek, seconded by Reed, to place on a future agenda for action restoring two city council members as ex-officio members to the Hospital Board, Utility Board and Swiftel Center Advisory Board. Discussion: Munsterman noted that if the Council can continue to consider the Swiftel Center issue and change its mind at the next meeting. All present voted yes; motion carried. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. Acting City Manager Lanning responded to questions pertaining to the action items on the agenda. City Clerk Report. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, provided a briefing on upcoming invitations and obligations. 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Consent Agenda: An executive session for contractual and legal matters was added to the agenda. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Department was removed from the agenda for action on March 24th. Corrections were noted to Resolution No. 20-09 and Ordinance 05-09. A motion was made by Bezdichek, seconded by Reed, to approve the agenda with the above amendments, which included: H. Agenda, as amended. I. Action on Resolution No. 20-09, awarding bids for airport snow plow. Resolution No. 20-09 Resolution Awarding Bids on Brookings Regional Airport Snow Plow 47 Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for the Brookings Regional Airport Snow Plow on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for the Brookings Regional Airport Snow Plow: Item #1: All Wheel Drive Medium Duty Snow-Removal Chassis: Westman Freightliner, Marshall, MN $86,000.00 Great Plains International, Sioux Falls, SD $105,700.00 Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD $106,750.00 Sheehan Mack Sales & Equipment, Sioux Falls, SD $160,355.00 Item #2: Dump Body: Westman Freightliner, Marshall, MN $26,830.50 Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD $26,830.50 Great Plains International, Sioux Falls, SD $27,635.00 Sheehan Mack Sales & Equipment, Sioux Falls, SD $27,635.00 Item #3: Material Spreader: Great Plains International, Sioux Falls, SD $12,916.00 Sheehan Mack Sales & Equipment, Sioux Falls, SD $12,916.00 Westman Freightliner, Marshall, MN $13,991.75 Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD $13,991.75 Item #4: Snow Plows (Front, Wing & Underbody): Westman Freightliner, Marshall, MN $25,335.75 Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD $25,335.75 Great Plains International, Sioux Falls, SD $29,989.00 Sheehan Mack Sales & Equipment, Sioux Falls, SD $29,989.00 Total Base Bid (Items #1, 2, 3 & 4): Westman Freightliner, Marshall, MN $152,158.00 Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD $172,907.85 Great Plains International, Sioux Falls, SD $176,240.00 Sheehan Mack Sales & Equipment, Sioux Falls, SD $230,895.00 Whereas, the low bid of $152,158.00 from Westman Freightliner was rejected because it did not meet the minimum specification of the 18,000 pound front axle, and Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Sanitation Products, Sioux Falls, SD, for the Total Base Bid of $172,907.85 be accepted. J. Appointment: Action to appoint Dain Arns to the Traffic Safety Committee as a citizen- at-large position, term expiring December 31, 2011. K. Appointment: Action to appoint September Kirby to the Park & Recreation Board, term expiring May 1, 2010. L. Adopt City Council 2009 goals. 48 Goals for 2009 Strategic Plan 1) Airport site selection Policy Statement: Complete the FAA mandated dual track analysis to resolve the airport runway issue by year-end to decide: 1) re-align the main runway at the current site; or 2) relocate the airport to a proposed site southeast of Brookings. Action Steps: o Complete the FAA-mandated environmental impact analysis. o Hold necessary public hearings, provide public education on the issues. o Select preferred site. o Conduct financial analysis. o Identify, begin property acquisition process for selected site. o Begin development of Airport Layout Plan. 2) Storm drainage Policy Statement: Complete the storm water management master plan, and identify and prioritize specific storm water management construction projects. Begin construction of said projects. Action Steps: Prioritize 13 project areas pursuant to Masterplan (scheduled for March 24). o Develop long-range financing plan for all projects. o Select initial projects for storm drainage remediation/correction. o Revise design standards for detention/retention ponds. o Begin property acquisition process for initial project(s). 3) 34th Avenue/20th Street Improvement Project Policy Statement: Complete the engineering feasibility study, and begin planning for the construction of an upgrade to 34th Avenue, construction of 20th Street extension, and an I-29 overpass for 20th Street. Action Steps: o Form and intergovernmental committee consisting of city, county, township, and business community representatives to provide oversight of the project. o Brookings County needs to enter project area mileage into STIP needs designation. o Identify parcels/property owners where right-of-way needs to be acquired. o Lobby for state law changes to provide for transportation district. o Prepare for 2010 construction of 34th (14-Prince and DOT signal changes). o Develop district plan for the area (34th, Swiftel/Larson Centers, DOT property, Wiese Business Park, Tellkamp Industrial Park, future industrial expansion area). o Begin federal lobbying effort for Federal Highway Funding for project. 4) Railroad safety crossings Policy Statement: Improve the safety of all in-city railroad crossings with city streets through short-term strategies that install quad-gates and other appurtenances at crossings; medium-term strategies that accomplish grade separation at intersections where possible; and long-term strategies that accomplish a railroad by-pass around Brookings. Action Steps: o Continue long, intermediate, short-term plans adopted in 2008. o Apply to DOT for safety crossing for 22nd Avenue. (COMPLETED) 49 o Secure federal appropriation of $750,000 for safety improvements. (AWAITING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FROM THIS SESSION) o Formalize schedule of subsequent crossing improvements. o Establish City-County Rail Authority. o Work with Canadian Pacific Railroad on Community Partnership Agreement. 5) Space needs analysis Policy Statement: Address the projected space and building facility shortage identified in the completed space needs study. This is to be accomplished by examining: 1) expanding current facilities, 2) replacing current facilities, or 3) combining a new facility with Brookings County. Action Steps: o Work with intergovernmental committee on comprehensive facility planning. o Explore acquiring/re-development Sawnee Hotel for City Hall expansion. 6) Swiftel Center expansion project Policy Statement Continue to analyze the potential/feasibility of expanding the Swiftel Center for convention, storage, and office needs as well as the possibility of partnering with a private developer for an attached hotel. Action Steps: o Identify any additional information needed to consider the project. o Final decision on build or no-build. o If the decision is to build: Identify scope of proposed project. - Contract with architect for design services. - Begin recruitment efforts for hotelier. - Secure County Resource Center space. - Develop financing plan. - Conduct public education efforts. - Consider adjusting TIF district. -If the decision is not to build: NO FURTHER ACTION NEEDED 7) Supplemental issues o Acquire DOT property for future commercial/retail development. o South Fire Sub-station. o Develop five-year staffing project plan. o Develop alternative budget scenarios for modified service levels. o Program for downtown private revitalization. o Phase II bike lane designation on city street determination. o Adaptive reuse/modify Research & Technology Center. o Create sustainability committee to analyze “green” and environmental issues. o Make technological and “interactive” advancements to the website. Goal #1 Quality of Life Strategy A (Bicycle-pedestrian friendly) Make the community more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adopt plans to promote, encourage and construct bicycle lanes on certain streets and continue the development of comprehensive bicycle-pedestrian pathway system that connects neighborhoods, schools, parks, SDSU and other civic and cultural amenities. Strategy B (Park system planning and development) Develop a park system master plan which will guide the long-range development of the park system. The plan should be 50 consistent with the City’s overall comprehensive plan. The plan should address means to increase play at Edgebrook Golf Course. Identify physical improvements to existing city parks and trail systems and strategically identify locations for future parkland. Strategy C (Nature Park) Complete an adoptive reuse plan to convert the old landfill into a Nature Park Preserve Area. Strategy D (Community wellness) Develop a community wellness initiative which forges partnerships into a community grass-roots coalition designed to promote health and wellness. Strategy E (Education and literacy) Develop a community-based partnership by facilitating a redesign of educational systems to survive and thrive in a new economy to support the city’s investment in knowledge based economy (i.e. research park). Strategy F (Housing opportunities) Implement the recommendations of the housing study to develop more diverse housing options to meet the needs of current and future residents. Examine and address issues of neighborhood density and character. Continue to assess TIF District housing policy. Strategy G (Wi-Fi hotspots) Help facilitate the creation of wireless districts in public areas, parks, and business areas. Goal #2 Economic Development Strategy A (marketing, workforce development) Continue to support the mission and goals of the BEDC and Vision Brookings. Strategy B (Retail development) BEDC and the City should partner on specific initiatives designed to attract and retain retail businesses. Strategy C (Purchase property for future development) Seek means to purchase or otherwise acquire property that can be land banked for future resale to encourage commercial and industrial development and investment. Strategy D (Road system into developing areas) The City should continue efforts to strategically identify and construct future street systems to help develop industrial parks or other commercial corridors. Strategy E (State property acquisition) Continue to monitor opportunities for the acquisition of the state DOT parcel as a means of land banking for future retail/commercial development (Specific strategy to Strategy C). Strategy F (Rail Authority membership) Obtain membership on the Brookings Rail Authority to use as a means of improving rail service and safety. Strategy G (Transportation funding legislative changes) Lobby for legislative changes that provide local option funding mechanisms to meet local transportation challenges. Strategy H (Downtown) Work with BEDC/DBI to develop a district plan for the Central Business District that private development, rehabilitation, and reinvestment in commercial property; and expands residential opportunities and historic preservation. Goal #3 Partnerships Strategy A (I-29 business clusters) Promote the development of industry clusters along I-29 among communities in proximity to the interstate. Develop specific strategies for regional economic development. Strategy B (SDSU) Continue to collaborate with SDSU on mutually beneficial projects and programs that may develop from time to time. 51 Strategy C (Intergovernmental relations) Maintain ongoing intergovernmental relationships and develop partnerships with state and federal legislations, SDSU officials, SDSU student association, school board, county board and township board officials. Goal #4 Fiscal Responsibility Strategy A (Reserves) Continue the practice of officially dedicating undesignated reserves for specific projects. Strategy B (Debt levels) Strategically schedule issuances of debt so their placement accomplishes the highest level of prudent capital investment while maintaining the highest level of financial stability. Strategy C (Core Services Plan) In light of current economic and fiscal constraints, staff shall develop optimal budget scenarios describing basic or ‘core’ services in addition to the traditional budget proposal. Such format shall follow outcome based performance budgeting parameters. Strategy D (Subsidy Funding) City shall notify subsidy recipients early in the budget process that a policy limiting subsidies to current year’s levels will guide final budget decisions, past funding is not guaranteed, and awarded amounts may be adjusted during the year. Goal #5 Governance Strategy A (Budget development) Implement initiatives designed to solicit and secure public input through public forums on performance based budgetary issues and spending priorities. Strategy B (Public education, openness in government) Implement initiatives to inform and educate the public about the workings of their city government through various mediums such as website, cable TV, surveys and newsletters. Strategy C (Council training and development) Provide training opportunities such as the National League of Cities Conferences, South Dakota Municipal League and others that invest in elected officials’ education and training. M. Action on an appropriation for Downtown holiday decorations. Action to authorize use of contingency funds for purchase of holiday decorations in the amount of $14,635 from Wayne Mfg. of Chariton, Iowa. N. (REMOVED FROM AGENDA/RESCHEDULED TO MARCH 24)Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. O. Action on Resolution No. 21-09, STP-Urban System Priority List. Resolution No. 21-09 - STP-Urban System Priority List WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has designated certain streets to be included in the STP-Urban System of Streets as defined by the SDDOT; and WHEREAS, the SDDOT has designated certain funds, Federal and State to be used for construction, reconstruction and major repair of the STP-Urban System Streets; and WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has been requested to establish a priority list of projects to be considered for funding by the SDDOT; 52 NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Brookings hereby resolves that the following projects be considered in the order listed: Priority Bid No. Project Location Year Type of Work Length (mi.) Cost 1. 34th Ave from US 14 to Prince Drive 2010 Grading, Curb & Gutter, 0.7 $1,250,000 2. Medary Ave. S. from 20th St. S. to 32nd St. S. 2012 Milling & Asphalt Overlay 1.6 $1,000,000 & Pavement Markings P. Action on Resolution No. 22-09, Resolution Directing Preparation of Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into Installments, And Providing For the Collection Thereof For Sidewalk Assessment, Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repairs). Resolution No. 22-09 Resolution Directing Preparation Of Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into Installments, And Providing For The Collection Thereof For Sidewalk Assessment, Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repairs) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: 1. More than twenty days have elapsed since the adoption and publication of Resolution 47-08, a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2008-01SWR. The referendum has not been invoked, and no written protests against the making of said improvement have been filed with the City Manager. 2. A contract for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2008-01SWR has been duly executed, and the City Council is authorized to levy special assessments pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9-43, SDCL 1967, as amended. 3. The City Engineer has caused an estimate of the expense of the work to be made and filed in City Hall showing the total cost of said improvement as follows: Contract price $31,166.45 Engineering, inspection, fiscal, legal expense, publication 403.90 Total Expense $31,570.35 4. The total cost of said improvement shall be paid as follows: City Repair Costs $24,434.80 Assessable costs $ 6,731.65 5. There shall be made and filed in the office of the City Clerk an assessment roll for said improvement. The assessments shall be on the basis of benefits upon each lot or tract of land contiguous to the sidewalk constituting said improvement. 53 6. The assessment shall be divided into five (5) equal annual installments for all amounts over $300.00. For amounts of $300.00 or less, the entire assessment shall be due. 7. Unless paid to the City in advance of maturity, the assessments shall be collected by the City Manager in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Chapter 9-43, SDCL 1967, as amended. 8. The interest rate to be borne by the unpaid installments of the special assessment is ten percent (10%). Q. Action on Resolution No. 23-09, Bridge Reinspection Program Resolution For Use With SDDOT Retainer Contracts. Resolution No. 23-09 Bridge Reinspection Program Resolution For Use With SDDOT Retainer Contracts Whereas, Title 23, Section 151, United States Code and Title 23, Part 650, Subpart C, Code of Federal Regulations, requires initial inspection of all bridges and reinspection at intervals not to exceed two years with the exception of reinforced concrete box culverts that meet specific criteria. These culverts are reinspected at intervals not to exceed four years. Therefore, the City of Brookings is desirous of participating in the Bridge Inspection Program using Bridge Replacement funds. The City of Brookings requests SDDOT to hire Clark Engineering Corporation (Consulting Engineers) for the inspection work. SDDOT will secure federal approvals, make payments to the Consulting Engineer for inspection services rendered, and bill the City for 20% of the cost. The City of Brookings will be responsible for the required 20% matching funds. There are a total of four (4) bridges in the City of Brookings, South Dakota that require inspection. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried. Ordinance No. 05-09 – Ultimate Fighting: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to approve Ordinance No. 05-09, an ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Discussion: Jenny Hammrich, Swiftel Center representative, noted changes to the Ordinance since the first reading with respect to liability coverage and the sanctioning language. The Center’s insurance coverage doesn’t require that promoter obtain participant coverage liability because it would be too cost prohibitive. She further noted that there isn’t a sanctioning body in South Dakota for these types of events. City Attorney Britzman noted that he prepared the proposed changes to the ordinance. Munsterman questioned if the participant liability was a cost factor to the promoter. Hammrich said yes. He asked what the industry standard was. She didn’t know. 54 Britzman said he has had an opportunity to visit with Tom Richter, Swiftel Center Executive Director, about these events and there are some other issues to consider because we don’t have all the information of various levels of these events. National televised events have different levels of liability protection associated with them and those have an adequate revenue stream to demand it. Smaller events have coverage of what those people are used to working with for costs. At the smaller level the proposed coverage is cost prohibitive. He noted that some of that information wasn’t investigated beyond the input from some contacts and the promoter. Munsterman suggested that there must be some type of credentialing organization that recommends insurance coverage for potential risk. Hammrich said the Compass corporate office requires general liability coverage of $2 million. There is no sanctioning organization for these events. The Center would not be lowering the general liability coverage that covers spectators. Participants for various events, such as rodeo, sign a waiver holding the Center and the City harmless. Britzman noted that the proposed Ordinance would cover these events at other locations in the City and not just the Swiftel Center. Munsterman expressed concern that these events don’t have certified or licensed officials and there’s no real control. Hammrich said the officials are certified by the promoter (Fury Inc.) and must follow their rules for referees. Reed said that ‘sanctioning body by any national organization’ is noted in the ordinance, but in fact there isn’t a sanctioning body. Hammrich said there is not a sports commission in South Dakota. Iowa has a sanctioning body, but referees aren’t required to be certified and participants aren’t required to obtain participant insurance. Fury Inc. follows UFC rules, but the UFC isn’t tracking their compliance. Munsterman reiterated his concern for lack of oversight in that the promoter trains the referees with their own rules and there’s not a national criterion, credentialing process, or disciplinary action. Hammrich commented that the Center doesn’t allow events back in its facilities if the events are deemed unsafe or illegal. He asked for more information about the participant waiver. Britzman said the promoter developed waiver form and he hasn’t evaluated it. The City has its own waiver. He noted that the promoter waiver isn’t intended to protect the City because the City isn’t sanctioning that specific event and isn’t involved in the process. It would be impossible to identify all specific circumstances for each event to be included in a waiver. The waiver is to provide adequate notice of risks and make it clear the participant has read and waives claims against the promoter or other parties. He hasn’t evaluated the form, but wouldn’t rely on a promoter’s waiver. Bartley noted that a participant waiver doesn’t include if the Center does something unsafe. He asked if the $2 million general liability limit was high enough. Reed asked Britzman what sources were used to write the ordinance. Britzman reviewed South Dakota ordinances, but found a model in Indiana the most useful. 55 Brunner noted that numerous proposals have been made to create a sports commission, but have failed repeatedly. Reed asked if the original sections were put back into the ordinance, would it force the promoter to be sanctioned by the UFC. Yes. Is it possible for the promoter to gain UFC sanctioning? Unknown. Bezdichek said he wants to see this ordinance so prohibitive and expensive, that there’s no way the promoter can come here. Munsterman asked why Section 10-6C(4) was omitted. Britzman said it wasn’t consistent with rules for conduct of the event because certain strikes to head are permitted. Munsterman asked how we know that is a sanctioned definition. Britzman said the promoter establishes the rules. Bartley commented under the ‘rules established’ section of the Ordinance, Fury Inc. is the sanctioning body by self-definition could occur. This doesn’t guarantee following a standard because there isn’t one. Reed said a sanctioning body removes/lowers liability because they develop the rules. However, the section of that ordinance is a mockery. He suggested tabling the issue until there could be more answers about the sanctioning body. ACTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to table. All present voted yes; motion carried. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to SDCL 9-22-21, Rita Thompson, Finance Manager, presented the 2008 “Unaudited “Annual Financial Report for the City of Brookings. No action was taken. Brookings Area Transit Authority. Lanning introduced the topic to the Council. The Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) has an opportunity to receive federal transit funds for construction of a new transit facility. BATA has been working with staff on potential site locations. The City of Brookings owns a 1.7 acre parcel in the Telkamp Industrial Park abutting Prince Drive and 34th Avenue. Staff initiated discussions with the adjacent property owner to gauge their level of interest in a land exchange for another city-owned parcel north of the property owner. The private owners were not interested in a land exchange. Staff also discussed the riding area east of the Larsen Ice Arena as a possible location. BATA indicated the site was not desirable as it displaces the riding area, which serves 4-H events as well as events at the Swiftel Center. Lanning said staff is seeking council direction in a location and the intent is to prepare a land lease agreement for council review and approval at a future council meeting. Brenda Schweitzer, Executive Director of BATA, was presented and offered to respond to Council questions. Discussion: Brunner asked about the possibility of using both of those parcels, using one area for a future park & ride and bus line location. Schweitzer said the challenge would be having enough land 56 to encompass future needs and using the opportunity of the funds available now. The land to the north doesn’t have utilities, but it has possibilities and she wouldn’t discount it as an option. Reed asked if the 1.7 acre parcel at the southern east end was enough to get started. Schweitzer said yes, but it is land locked. It’s not as convenient as the previous location. She said not that it isn’t possible, but she is looking at a long term plan to develop a transit center for Brookings. Bartley asked if County has addressed the current facilities needs. Schweitzer said no, it’s scheduled for discussion next week. Bartley expressed concern that the Council hasn’t seen a formal long-term plan or needs assessment from BATA that can be used to justify its future needs. Schweitzer said BATA is in the process of working with a consultant on business plan, but a formal presentation isn’t complete. She noted that this funding opportunity came up suddenly with a short timeframe and BATA is trying to respond quickly. Schweitzer has discussed the sustainability issue with State Department of Transportation personnel related to additional space, heat, mechanic’s needs, etc. She noted that ridership is up 35% over previous year. The grant would pay for not just the building, but site work, infrastructure (i.e. access to utilities, within reason), and equipment. There’s $2.5 million available for Brookings. There’s not a specific construction estimate as yet because BATA will work with whatever land is available. Steve Rames, BATA Director, said he expects the facility to be twice the current size, estimating cost at $850,000 to $1 million. Rames also asked about land swap options in the area. Brunner asked if an increase ridership would mean more funds available to BATA. Schweitzer said yes, the state receives all federal funds and BATA is a subgrantee, but there are incentive funds available to more aggressive programs. Whaley asked if there was consensus to move forward on the two parcels. She asked Schweitzer if BATA would accept the two parcels if offered. Schweitzer said that BATA wouldn’t turn down the offer. Once the amount of land is determined, she would work with the state to line up the funding and would work within those means set aside. The state will allocate funds to best potential uses and that includes transit facilities away from the bus barn type; however, there may be some restrictions on aesthetics. Bartley asked if ADA compliant bathrooms would be required at the park and ride facility. ACTION: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to direct staff to prepare a land lease agreement for BATA on both parcels located in the Telkamp Industrial Addition on 34th Avenue and Prince Drive, for action on both leases at the next meeting. All present voted yes; motion carried. Board of Regents MOU. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and South Dakota Board of Regents regarding the Innovation Campus. All present voted yes; motion carried. 57 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING By and Between the City of Brookings, a South Dakota municipality, and the South Dakota Board of Regents WHEREAS, in furtherance of the development of the South Dakota State University Innovation Campus, a university-related research park operated pursuant to a ground lease with the South Dakota Board of Regents by the South Dakota State University Growth Partnership, the City of Brookings has undertaken to finance (see Exhibit A), to construct and to maintain necessary infrastructure; and NOW THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree that the City of Brookings and the South Dakota Board of Regents have a common interest in the successful development and operation of the South Dakota State University Innovation Campus and that it is in their mutual interest to insure that both parties have the opportunity to advance their interests in the event that a successor to the Growth Partnership is required, thus, the parties hereby agree to mutually undertake the selection and engagement of a successor for a ground lease in order to further their common interest. EXHIBIT A INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS INCURRED FOR THE SDSU INNOVATION CAMPUS Pursuant to the approved development plan, infrastructure improvements include: Streets, curb and gutters; sidewalks; storm drainage systems; natural gas distribution systems; sanitary sewer systems; water distribution systems; fire protection systems; landscaping; electrical systems; streetlighting; signage and telecommunications systems. Estimated cost of above improvements prior to bidding: $4,215,850. The estimate will be replaced with the actual contract amount when a construction contract is awarded by the Brookings City Council. Annual Reports from City Boards, Committees & Commissions. The Council was presented with the 2008 annual reports from its city boards, committees and commissions. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to accept the reports. All present voted yes; motion carried. Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to enter into Executive Session at 7:12 p.m. to consult with legal counsel for contractual and legal matters with the Council, City Attorney, and Acting City Manager present. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to exit Executive Session at 7:47 p.m. Adjourn. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. CITY OF BROOKINGS Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, City Clerk 58 INSERT MINUTES 59 CONSENT Agenda: C. Action on bids for aerial lift truck for Forestry Dept. On March 3rd the city opened bids for furnishing a new aerial lift truck. There is no trade and 2009 budget for this item is $135,000. The low bid of $121,206 FOB Brookings from Altec meets specifications in all areas except mounting the aerial device over the rear wheels rather than mid body. Mike Newhouse from Altec indicated to us that is not a problem; they can do that at no extra cost. Subsequent to bid letting, the forestry crew traveled to St. James, MN last Thursday for a hands-on demonstration of a similar truck at a utility company, as we were not familiar with this brand of equipment. They were very satisfied with the truck and aerial equipment, so we are comfortable recommending acceptance. However, we would appreciate consideration of a few change orders to provide a more useable price of equipment. None of these three items were included in the Base Bid of ABM or Altec. 1. Provide super cab truck chassis rather than “regular” cab. This was a mistake in the specifications on my part. We wanted the type of cab which has a small extra door on each side that provides more access and space behind the seat, for equipment – first aid, helmets, radio devices, etc. – called a “super cab”. A “crew cab” provides two full-size doors on each side and is for extra passengers, which we do not need. The regular cab provides no back seat space. Extra for the super cab is $3,122. 2. A cab guard protects the cab from falling branches, etc. Because of originally anticipated costs, we did not include the cab guard in the base bid; we could probably build our own later. Altec quoted us $1,200 to add at the factory, and we would recommend this be done. 3. We specified a boom reach of 40 feet minimum. Altec bid a machine that would reach 42 ft., as did ABM. However, Altec also makes the same aerial lift device that reaches 50 ft. otherwise everything else is the same, truck chassis, controls, etc. The equipment we demonstrated at St. James was a 50 ft. machine, and would be much better for our purposes. The extra 8 ft. reach, both for tree trimming from the boulevard, removals, or even for other auxiliary uses would be very useful and more efficient (less moving, etc.). Altec’s quote for this change is $4,605.00 60 To recap the change-orders would be as follows: BASE BID $121,206 Change Order 1. Super Cab $ 3,122 Change Order 2. Cab Guard $ 1,200 Change Order 3. Extended reach $ 4,605 TOTAL $130,133 BUDGET $135,000 REMAINING $ 4,867 BID TAB ABM Altec AERIAL LIFT TRUCK Hopkins, MN Ft.Wayne, Indiana MARCH 3, 2009 BASE BID - One (1) Aerial Lift truck as per specifications LUMP SUM $143,914 $119,806 ALTERNATE OPTION 1 Manual transmission to replace automatic transmission DEDUCT ($1,060) ($1,200) ALTERNATE OPTION 2. FOB Brookings, SD ADD $275 $1,400 ESTIMATED DATE OF DELIVERY 200-240 days 150-180 days 61 CONSENT Agenda: D. Action on Resolution No. 24-09, authorizing transfer of funds between loan funds for airport plow. This resolution allows us to move the money from the liquor fund to the airport fund and creates a loan due in full by 2013 at which time reimbursement funds from the US Department of Transportation will be available for 97% of the cost. RESOLUTION NO. 24-09 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ADVANCE TO THE AIRPORT FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, Resolution 20-09 authorizes the purchase of airport snow plow in the amount of $172,907.85, and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City of Brookings to finance the purchase of said airport snow removal equipment by a loan from the Liquor Fund to the Airport Fund, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is directed to execute an Interfund Loan from the Liquor Fund to the Airport Fund, providing an annual interest rate of 3%, payable as follows: YEAR PAYMENT PRINCIPAL INTEREST 2010 6,865.00 1,677.76 5,187.24 2011 6,865.00 1,728.10 5,136.90 2012 6,865.00 1,779.94 5,085.06 2013 172,753.71 167,722.05 5,031.66 Totals 193,348.71 172,907.85 20,440.86 Passed and approved on the 24th day of March, 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS ____________________________________ Scott D. Munstermann, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk 62 CONSENT Agenda: E. Action on Resolution No. 25-09, appointing on election workers for April 14th municipal election. Pursuant to state law, action is needed to appoint the municipal election workers for the April 14th election. Resolution No. 25-09 Appointment of Election Judges WHEREAS, a City of Brookings Municipal Election will be held on April 14, 2009 for the positions of two Council members; and WHEREAS, as required by SDCL 9-13-16.1, the City Council must appoint Election Superintendents and Deputies and set their rate of compensation; and WHEREAS, the following superintendents and deputies are hereby appointed at a rate of $10.50 per hour for superintendents, $10.00 per hour for deputies, and a flat fee of $20.00 for the April 13, 2009 Election School: RESOLUTION BOARD: David Peterson, Larry Hult , ALTERNATE: Karen Cook; PRECINCT 1 - Tompkin’s Alumni Center: Harold Widvey, Superintendent, Lois Widvey, Madeline Francis, ALTERNATE: Bobbe Bartley; PRECINCT 2 - 1st Lutheran Church: Neva Jean Corlett, Superintendent, Norma Linn, Leslie Tlustos, ALTERNATE: Marcella Hadley; PRECINCT 3 - City Hall; Verle Barg, Superintendent, Linda Santema, Barb Woolworth, ALTERNATE: Russell Lokken; PRECINCT 4 - Ascension Lutheran Church: Sue Knutzen, Superintendent, Marilyn Foerster, Sharon Anderegg, ALTERNATE: Karen VanderWal; PRECINCT 5 – Bethel Baptist Church: Hazel Hauff, Superintendent, Marlys Berkland, Char Honkomp, ALTERNATE: Mary Fiedler; and PRECINCT 6 – United Church of Christ: Mary Peterson, Superintendent, Dorothy Williamson, Charleen Forsyth, ALTERNATE: Delores Canaday. Passed and approved this 24th day of March, 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk 63 CONSENT Agenda: F. Action on bids for library coffee shop. Staff has evaluated the bids received on March 17th, 2009 for the Coffee Shop which consists of work limited to the addition of plastic laminate casework with minor finishes such as painting and VCT installation and miscellaneous mechanical and electrical work. Six bids were received as shown below. Bidder’s Name and Address Base Bid Dallas I. Hanson 700 US Hwy 75 Ortonville, MN 56278 $21,200.00 Robbins Construction & Inspection, Inc. 47537 209th Ave. Aurora, SD 57002 $24,123.62 Clark Drew Construction 302 32nd Ave S Brookings, SD 57006 $25,750.00 B.H.I. 27240 Hwy 115 Harrisburg, SD 57032 $27,896.00 Mills Construction 1311 Main Ave. So. Brookings, SD 57006 $28,995.00 WS Construction Management 3204 S. Madelyn Avenue, Suite 200 Sioux Falls, SD 57106 $47, 984.00 The low bid was submitted by Dallas I. Hanson in the amount of $21, 200.00. Based on the project manager’s review of the firm’s experience, reputation, and financial condition of Dallas I. Hanson indicates that they are capable of completing the work required. Therefore, we recommend the award of a contract for construction of the Coffee Shop to Dallas I. Hanson in the amount of $21,200.00. 64 CONSENT Agenda: G. Action on Resolution No. 26-09, Fixing Time and Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk Assessment Project 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites). The 2008-01SWR Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter repair project was a project to replace landowner sidewalks causing trip hazards. The project was completed in 2008 and the final change order was approved. The City Engineer is proceeding with the assessment process to bill the property owners for their sidewalk construction costs. The assessment cost is for each landowner is calculated by using their specific sidewalk cost plus the 6% engineering and administration fee. Resolution 47-08 authorized the sidewalk assessment project. This resolution sets the public hearing date for the sidewalk repair project, which will be April 7, 2009. The engineering office will mail a hearing notice and the actual cost of sidewalk repairs by receipt certified mail to each owner on the project as required by State law. There will be one final resolution to levy the sidewalk assessment after the hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 26-09 RESOLUTION FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING UPON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-01SWR (2008 Sidewalk Repair Sites) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: 1. The assessment roll for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2008-01SWR having been filed in the office of the City Clerk on the 11th day of March, 2009, the City Council shall meet in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, the 7th day of April, 2009, at 6:00 o'clock PM, the said date being not less than twenty (20) days from the filing of said assessment roll for hearing thereon. 2. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare a notice describing, in general terms Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2008-01SWR, the date of filing the assessment roll, the time and place of hearing thereon, stating that the assessment roll will be open for public inspection at the office of the City Engineer and referring to the assessment roll for further particulars. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish said notice in the official newspaper at least one (1) week prior to the date set for hearing and to mail a copy thereof, by first class mail addressed to the owner or owners of any property to be assessed at his, her or their last mailing address as shown by the records of the Director of Equalization at least one (1) week prior to the date set for said hearing. Passed and approved this 24th day of March 2009. 65 Name Sidewalk Location Erin J. Stahlecker 104 5th Street Thomas W. Steffensen 127 6th Avenue S. Dave Grayson 146 & 150 3rd Ave. S. Erica Derycke 161 2nd Avenue S. Harrison C. Thompson 162 2nd Avenue S. Darnall Rentals LLC. 203 5th Street Jacqueline Telkamp 209 5th Street East Central Mental Health & Chemical Dependency Center 211 4th Street Gary W. Jensen 224 Main Avenue S. Jeffrey M. Rogers 323 2nd Avenue Kelsey M. Grimlie 414 5th Avenue S. Douglas R. Buller 417 Medary Ave. Jeffery E. Fischer 502 6th Avenue Doug & Laurie Carruthers 510 9th Avenue Thomas R. Shaffer 511 9th Avenue Kelley J. Tilmon 709 3rd Street Marvin Reihe 710 6th Avenue S. Jeffrey T. Rief 715 3rd Street Rosemary T. Heilman 809 4th Street Richard Grebel 813 4th Street Mary Wolpert 815 3rd Street Diane M. Kosbau 824 5th Street Carl Kline 825 4th Street Larry J. Hoium 908 5th Street Old Sanctuary Associates 928 4th Street Thomas O. Manzer 929 4th Street *The following is a list of properties where the City paid for removal and installation of sidewalk for the 2008 sidewalk project and needs reimbursement. 66 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. 67 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. 06-09: Budget Amendment, An ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2009 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. Second reading - April 7th Budget Amendment #1 in 2009 is requesting the Council to allow the departments to expend 2008 expenditures in 2009. The breakdown is as follows: Department Description Amount City Clerk Laser fiche Training $6,500 Gen Gov Buildings Replace door panels FD $5,000 Fire Department Structure Gear $8,865 Fire Department Emitter’s $9,983 Parks Hillcrest Playground Eqp $45,000 Total General Fund $75,348 Swiftel Center 08 Capital $33,970 Industrial Park 08 Paving $111,530 Special Assessment 08 15th Street S $160,000 Total Special Revenue Funds $305,500 Streetscape 08 Capital Project $1,207,759 Total Capital Projects $1,207,759 We are recommending adjusting other line item revenues and expenditures which could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time of making the annual appropriation ordinance. These entries balance and do not create additional revenue or expense. Included is the remodeling at the Library for the coffee shop in the amount of $80,000 which will be paid for by a transfer into the general fund from the special revenue fund, library donations. This budget ordinance includes the capital project for the Innovation Campus. We are recognizing the expenditures for the storm drainage, sewer, water and streets. The loan of $2,462,500 from the general fund and public improvement fund will be prepared by resolution. The DENR loan proceeds are included within this budget ordinance in the amount of $1,368,360. Within the Enterprise funds there are three major capital purchases. • The Airport is purchasing a snow plow as theirs cannot be reasonably repaired. • The Solid Waste Collection is purchasing an automated garbage truck. • The Edgebrook Golf Course is proposing purchasing five mowers and a heavy duty utility vehicle on a lease program. 68 The Research and Technology Center had budgeted for some capital improvements in 2009 however since we are losing our renter, T J Technologies in June we are recommending not proceeding with the project. We are requesting the funds for repairing the sprinkler system. We did receive an insurance payment for half of the cost in 2008. 69 ORDINANCE NO. 06-09 An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2009 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA: WHEREAS, there are 2008 funds not expended in the amount of $75,348 within the general fund, capital in the amount of $305,500 within the special revenue funds, and the Streetscape project in the amount of $1,207,759, AND WHEREAS, there is a need to complete several capital projects in 2009, AND WHEREAS, the Airport needs a snow plow and Solid Waste Collections needs an automated truck, AND WHEREAS, the Edgebrook Golf Course will be purchasing new mowers on a lease program, AND WHEREAS, there is a need to adjust the budget to respond to the actual revenues and expenditures in fiscal year 2009, AND WHEREAS THE CITY CHARTER allows that “if during the fiscal year the City Manager certifies that there are available for appropriation revenues in excess of those estimated in the budget, the City Council by ordinance may make supplemental appropriations for the year up to the amount of such excess”. This Ordinance is declared to be for the support of the municipal government and its existing public institutions and it shall be in full force and effect after its passage and publication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the City Manager be authorized to make the following budget adjustments to the 2009 budget: Budget Amendment #1 Revenue Expense Policy and Adm-City Clerk, City Manager (2,691) Financial Adm-Finance, Human Res (1,628) Other-Non-Dept, Gen Gov Buildings, IT 40,554 4,849 Public Safety-Police, Fire, Animal Control (3,941) Public Works-Engineer, Street 11,372 Culture-Park, Recreation, & Library 170,640 306,325 Community Development 120,500 92,756 Total General Government 331,694 407,042 Public Improvement 33,970 E-911 (6,768) 70 Swiftel Center 33,970 Library Donations 80,000 Industrial Park 111,530 Special Assessment 465,000 535,000 Storm Drainage (472) Total Special Revenue 465,000 787,230 Streetscape 50,000 1,207,759 TIF#1 Innovation Campus 1,368,360 3,830,860 Total Capital Projects 1,418,360 5,038,619 Liquor Fund (2,901) Airport Fund 173,136 Edgebrook Golf Course 176,906 Solid Waste Collections 185,233 Landfill (2,181) Research & Technology Center (14,000) (21,800) Total Enterprise Funds (14,000) 508,393 ALL ORDINANCES or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: March 24, 2009 SECOND READING: April 7, 2009 PUBLISHED: April 10, 2009 CITY OF BROOKINGS _________________________ Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST ____________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionFund: 101General GovernmentDept: 000GeneralREVENUE101-000-4-111-01Current Real Estate Taxes2,400,000.002,175,000.00Adjust to levy-Budget Amend #1101-000-4-113-001st Penny Sales & Use Tax4,675,000.004,820,554.00Adjust sales tax income Budget Amend #1101-000-4-662-01Rental Income26,000.006,000.00Move to Comm Develop Bud Amend #1101-000-4-664-00Sale of Fixed Assets0.0060,000.00ICAP Sale Moriarity Park Improv prior years BudgetAmend #1101-000-6-700-00Transfer in to General Fund0.0080,000.00Transfer Lib Don for Coffeshop Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:7,101,000.007,141,554.00REVENUE Total7,101,000.007,141,554.00EXPENSE Total0.000.00General Total7,101,000.007,141,554.00Dept: 403City ClerkEXPENSE101-403-5-101-00Regular Pay128,252.00128,517.00Range Adjustments Budget Amend #1101-403-5-123-00Group Insurance39,182.0037,931.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-403-5-427-02Registration & Training1,000.007,500.0008 Laserfiche Training Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:168,434.00173,948.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total168,434.00173,948.00City Clerk Total-168,434.00-173,948.00Dept: 405Non-DepartmentalEXPENSE101-405-5-856-61Performance Pay9,200.000.00Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:9,200.000.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total9,200.000.00Non-Departmental Total-9,200.000.00Dept: 406City ManagerEXPENSE101-406-5-101-00Regular Pay111,842.00113,200.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-406-5-123-00Group Insurance11,345.0010,982.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:123,187.00124,182.00Page 1 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionREVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total123,187.00124,182.00City Manager Total-123,187.00-124,182.00Dept: 414Human ResourcesEXPENSE101-414-5-101-00Regular Pay108,619.00108,938.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-414-5-123-00Group Insurance19,524.0018,811.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:128,143.00127,749.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total128,143.00127,749.00Human Resources Total-128,143.00-127,749.00Dept: 415FinanceEXPENSE101-415-5-101-00Regular Pay206,775.00209,706.00Range Adjustments Budget Amend #1101-415-5-123-00Group Insurance40,998.0036,833.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:247,773.00246,539.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total247,773.00246,539.00Finance Total-247,773.00-246,539.00Dept: 416Information TechnologyEXPENSE101-416-5-123-00Group Insurance4,595.004,444.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:4,595.004,444.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total4,595.004,444.00Information Technology Total-4,595.00-4,444.00Dept: 417Government BuildingsEXPENSE101-417-5-911-00Buildings & Structures130,500.00135,500.0008 FD Doors Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:130,500.00135,500.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total130,500.00135,500.00Government Buildings Total-130,500.00-135,500.00Page 2 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionDept: 418Community DevelopmentREVENUE101-418-4-446-16Code Enforcemnt Inspection Fee0.00500.00Budget Amend #1101-418-4-662-01Rental Income0.0020,000.00From GF Non-dept Rev Budget Amend #1101-418-4-664-00Sale of Fixed Asset0.00100,000.00Sale to ICAP Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:0.00120,500.00EXPENSE101-418-5-101-00Regular Pay243,126.00243,405.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-418-5-123-00Group Insurance43,352.0042,379.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-418-5-425-02Maintenance Motor Vehicles0.00500.00Budget Amend #1101-418-5-425-05Maintenance Rental Buildings0.001,000.00Budget Amend #1101-418-5-426-10Gasoline0.00800.00Budget Amend #1101-418-5-426-12Tires0.00550.00Budget Amend #1101-418-5-428-02Electric and Water0.00200.00Unit vacant Budget Amend #1101-418-5-428-03Heat0.00400.00Unit vacant Budget Amend #1101-418-5-920-00Furniture & Equipment15,000.005,000.00Budget Amend #1101-418-5-960-00Street & Sidewalk Improvements0.00100,000.00ICAP lot improvements Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:301,478.00394,234.00REVENUE Total0.00120,500.00EXPENSE Total301,478.00394,234.00Community Development Total-301,478.00-273,734.00Dept: 419EngineeringEXPENSE101-419-5-101-00Regular Pay282,000.00282,207.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-419-5-123-00Group Insurance38,475.0031,444.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:320,475.00313,651.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total320,475.00313,651.00Engineering Total-320,475.00-313,651.00Dept: 421Police ServicesEXPENSE101-421-5-123-00Group Insurance380,516.00358,833.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:380,516.00358,833.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total380,516.00358,833.00Police Services Total-380,516.00-358,833.00Page 3 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionDept: 422Fire Protection ServicesEXPENSE101-422-5-101-00Regular Pay160,455.00161,043.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-422-5-123-00Group Insurance37,543.0036,349.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-422-5-920-00Furniture & Equipment0.008,865.0008 Structure Gear Budget Amend #1101-422-5-940-00Other Capital25,000.0034,983.0008 Emmitter's Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:222,998.00241,240.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total222,998.00241,240.00Fire Protection Services Total-222,998.00-241,240.00Dept: 431StreetEXPENSE101-431-5-101-00Regular Pay577,121.00599,754.00Payout of Benefits Budget Amend #1101-431-5-123-00Group Insurance128,528.00124,091.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-431-5-425-04Maintenance of Equipment5,720.0012,720.00Winter repairs Budget Amend #1101-431-5-425-05Maintenance Buildings1,000.001,500.00Repair doors Budget Amend #1101-431-5-425-06Maintenance Radio722.002,222.00New radio's Budget Amend #1101-431-5-960-00Street & Sidewalk Improvements230,000.00221,000.00Moved operation repair eqp & bldgs Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:943,091.00961,287.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total943,091.00961,287.00Street Total-943,091.00-961,287.00Dept: 442Animal ControlEXPENSE101-442-5-123-00Group Insurance15,712.0015,212.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:15,712.0015,212.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total15,712.0015,212.00Animal Control Total-15,712.00-15,212.00Dept: 451RecreationEXPENSE101-451-5-101-00Regular Pay190,799.00191,700.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-451-5-123-00Group Insurance34,863.0033,755.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:225,662.00225,455.00Page 4 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionREVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total225,662.00225,455.00Recreation Total-225,662.00-225,455.00Dept: 452ParksREVENUE101-452-4-446-10Donations250,000.00410,000.00Moriarty for park $10,000 & Ice Arena $400,000 BudgetAmend #1REVENUE Total:250,000.00410,000.00EXPENSE101-452-5-101-00Regular Pay359,935.00361,118.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-452-5-123-00Group Insurance104,140.00100,949.00Group Ins adjustment Budget Amend #1101-452-5-911-00Building & Structures590,000.00740,000.00Ice Arnea addn'l $150,000 Budget Amend #1101-452-5-920-00Furniture & Equipment15,000.0060,000.0008 Hillcrest Play Eqp Bud Amend #1101-452-5-940-00Other Capital40,000.0072,784.00Moriarty Park Improv Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:1,109,075.001,334,851.00REVENUE Total250,000.00410,000.00EXPENSE Total1,109,075.001,334,851.00Parks Total-859,075.00-924,851.00Dept: 454ForestryREVENUE101-454-4-446-10Donation0.0010,640.00Thru State for Trees Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:0.0010,640.00EXPENSE101-454-5-123-00Group Insurance33,840.0025,889.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-454-5-426-06Horticulture Supplies13,000.0023,640.00Tree Grant Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:46,840.0049,529.00REVENUE Total0.0010,640.00EXPENSE Total46,840.0049,529.00Forestry Total-46,840.00-38,889.00Dept: 455LibraryEXPENSE101-455-5-101-00Regular Pay451,291.00451,603.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-455-5-123-00Group Insurance72,174.0069,929.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1101-455-5-911-00Building & Structures0.0080,000.00Coffee Shop Addn Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:523,465.00601,532.00Page 5 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionREVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total523,465.00601,532.00Library Total-523,465.00-601,532.00REVENUE Total7,351,000.007,682,694.00EXPENSE Total4,901,144.005,308,186.00General Government Total2,449,856.002,374,508.00Fund: 21375% Public Improvemnts/ordDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE213-000-5-940-01Other Capital - Swiftel Center0.0033,970.0008 Swiftel Capital Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:0.0033,970.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.0033,970.00General Total0.00-33,970.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.0033,970.0075% Public Improvemnts/ord Total0.00-33,970.00Fund: 214E911Dept: 000GeneralEXPENSE214-000-5-123-00Group Insurance71,212.0064,444.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:71,212.0064,444.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total71,212.0064,444.00General Total-71,212.00-64,444.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total71,212.0064,444.00E911 Total-71,212.00-64,444.00Fund: 224Swiftel CenterDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE224-000-5-940-01Capital70,000.00103,970.0008 Capital $33,970 Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:70,000.00103,970.00Page 6 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionREVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total70,000.00103,970.00General Total-70,000.00-103,970.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total70,000.00103,970.00Swiftel Center Total-70,000.00-103,970.00Fund: 227Library DonationsDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE227-000-7-899-00Transfer out General Fund0.0080,000.00To Gen Fund for Coffeshop Addn Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:0.0080,000.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.0080,000.00General Total0.00-80,000.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.0080,000.00Library Donations Total0.00-80,000.00Fund: 278Industrial ParkDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE278-000-5-960-00Street & Sidewalk Improvements0.00111,530.0008 Asphalt Paving Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:0.00111,530.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.00111,530.00General Total0.00-111,530.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total0.00111,530.00Industrial Park Total0.00-111,530.00Fund: 280Special AssessmentDept: 000GeneralREVENUE280-000-4-663-45Special Assessment Current235,000.00700,000.0008-09 15th St Assmnt & alley & Streetscape BudgetAmend #1REVENUE Total:235,000.00700,000.00Page 7 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionEXPENSE280-000-5-960-00Street & Sidewalk Improvements400,000.00935,000.0008-09 15th St, Alley, Sidewalk, Streetscape Budget Amend#1EXPENSE Total:400,000.00935,000.00REVENUE Total235,000.00700,000.00EXPENSE Total400,000.00935,000.00General Total-165,000.00-235,000.00REVENUE Total235,000.00700,000.00EXPENSE Total400,000.00935,000.00Special Assessment Total-165,000.00-235,000.00Fund: 282Storm DrainageDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE282-000-5-123-00Group Insurance15,173.0014,701.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:15,173.0014,701.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total15,173.0014,701.00General Total-15,173.00-14,701.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total15,173.0014,701.00Storm Drainage Total-15,173.00-14,701.00Fund: 513Streetscape ProjectDept: 000GeneralREVENUE513-000-4-446-08Reimbursed Expense0.0050,000.00BMU Sewer & Water Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:0.0050,000.00EXPENSE513-000-5-856-99Streetscape Contingency0.00339,560.0008 Contingency Budget Amend #1513-000-5-940-00Streets and Sidewalks0.00480,704.0008 Construction Budget Amend #1513-000-5-940-02Sewer and Water0.00387,495.0008 Sewer & Water Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:0.001,207,759.00REVENUE Total0.0050,000.00EXPENSE Total0.001,207,759.00General Total0.00-1,157,759.00Page 8 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionREVENUE Total0.0050,000.00EXPENSE Total0.001,207,759.00Streetscape Project Total0.00-1,157,759.00Fund: 514TIF Dist #1 Project/InnovationDept: 000(No Description)REVENUE514-000-4-653-50Proceeds from Debt0.001,368,360.00DENR Loan Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:0.001,368,360.00EXPENSE514-000-5-429-09Storm Drainage & Sewer0.001,368,360.00Storm Drainage & Sewer Budget Amend #1514-000-5-433-01Water & Street Construction0.002,462,500.00Water & Street Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:0.003,830,860.00REVENUE Total0.001,368,360.00EXPENSE Total0.003,830,860.00(No Description) Total0.00-2,462,500.00REVENUE Total0.001,368,360.00EXPENSE Total0.003,830,860.00TIF Dist #1 Project/Innovation Total0.00-2,462,500.00Fund: 601LiquorDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE601-000-5-101-00Regular Pay228,767.00229,042.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1601-000-5-123-00Group Insurance42,071.0038,895.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:270,838.00267,937.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total270,838.00267,937.00General Total-270,838.00-267,937.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total270,838.00267,937.00Liquor Total-270,838.00-267,937.00Fund: 606AirportDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE606-000-5-101-00Regular Pay90,584.0091,325.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1606-000-5-123-00Group Insurance6,008.005,495.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1606-000-5-422-03Consulting/Expense190,700.000.00Moving to Capital per Auditors Budget Amend #1Page 9 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment Description606-000-5-930-00Machinery & Auto Equipment36,931.00209,839.00Snowplow Budget Amend #1606-000-5-940-00Other Capital0.00190,700.00From Consulting per Auditors Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:324,223.00497,359.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total324,223.00497,359.00General Total-324,223.00-497,359.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total324,223.00497,359.00Airport Total-324,223.00-497,359.00Fund: 607Edgebrook Golf CourseDept: 000(No Description)EXPENSE607-000-5-101-00Regular Pay109,737.00110,231.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1607-000-5-123-00Group Insurance33,010.0031,722.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1607-000-5-930-00Machinery & Auto Equipment70,300.00248,000.005yr CIP Mowers Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:213,047.00389,953.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total213,047.00389,953.00(No Description) Total-213,047.00-389,953.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total213,047.00389,953.00Edgebrook Golf Course Total-213,047.00-389,953.00Fund: 612Solid Waste CollectionDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE612-000-5-123-00Group Insurance72,182.0067,415.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1612-000-5-930-00Machinery & Auto Equipment0.00190,000.00Automated Truck Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:72,182.00257,415.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total72,182.00257,415.00General Total-72,182.00-257,415.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total72,182.00257,415.00Solid Waste Collection Total-72,182.00-257,415.00Page 10 City of BrookingsGeneral LedgerPrinted: 03/17/200914:58User: rthompsonBudget Adjustment Proof ListFiscal Year: 2009Account NumberDescriptionOriginal BudgetNew BudgetAdjustment DescriptionFund: 625LandfillDept: 000GeneralEXPENSE625-000-5-101-00Regular Pay302,184.00302,492.00Range Adjustment Budget Amend #1625-000-5-123-00Group Insurance72,779.0070,290.00Group Ins Adjustment Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:374,963.00372,782.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total374,963.00372,782.00General Total-374,963.00-372,782.00REVENUE Total0.000.00EXPENSE Total374,963.00372,782.00Landfill Total-374,963.00-372,782.00Fund: 630Research & Tech CenterDept: 000GeneralREVENUE630-000-4-848-12Rentals214,000.00200,000.00Vacancy TJ Tech Budget Amend #1REVENUE Total:214,000.00200,000.00EXPENSE630-000-5-425-05Maintenance Buildings5,000.0010,000.0008 Sprinkler head accident Budget Amend #1630-000-5-429-03Cleaning Services0.007,200.00Budget Amend #1630-000-5-911-00Buildings & Structures34,000.000.00Budget Amend #1EXPENSE Total:39,000.0017,200.00REVENUE Total214,000.00200,000.00EXPENSE Total39,000.0017,200.00General Total175,000.00182,800.00REVENUE Total214,000.00200,000.00EXPENSE Total39,000.0017,200.00Research & Tech Center Total175,000.00182,800.00REVENUE Total7,800,000.0010,001,054.00EXPENSE Total6,751,782.0013,493,066.00Grand Total1,048,218.00-3,492,012.00Page 11 82 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. 8. Ordinance No. 07-09: Hospital Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 42-94 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the hospital board of trustees in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Pursuant to Council action taken on March 10th, city staff and the city attorney have prepared the enclosed Ordinance that would allow the Council to appoint Council members as ex-officio members of the Brookings Hospital Board of Trustees. 83 ORDINANCE NO. 07-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 42-94 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA AND PERTAINING TO THE DESIGNATION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER TO ATTEND MEETINGS OF THE HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES 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. Sec. 42-94. Council member to attend meetings. One of the members of the city council shall be designated by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, to attend the meetings of the Hospital Board of Trustees so that the council may at all times be fully advised of the proceedings of the Hospital Board. The city council member so designated shall not be counted for purposes of determination of a quorum and shall not be entitled to vote or take any official action on matters before the Hospital Board. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk 84 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. 9. Ordinance No. 08-09: Utility Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending section 86-43 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the utility board in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Pursuant to Council action taken on March 10th, city staff and the city attorney have prepared the enclosed Ordinance that would allow the Council to appoint Council members as ex-officio members of the Brookings Utility Board. 85 ORDINANCE NO. 08-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 86-43 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA AND PERTAINING TO THE DESIGNATION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER TO ATTEND MEETINGS OF THE UTILITY BOARD 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. Sec. 86-43. Council member to attend meetings. One of the members of the city council shall be designated by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, to attend the meetings of the utility board so that the council may at all times be fully advised of the proceedings of the utility board. The city council member so designated shall not be counted for purposes of determination of a quorum and shall not be entitled to vote or take any official action on matters before the utility board. II. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk 86 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. 10. Ordinance No. 09-09: Swiftel Center Advisory Board Ex-Officios, An ordinance amending Section 2-183 of the code of ordinances of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and pertaining to the designation of a council member to attend meetings of the swiftel center advisory committee in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. Second reading - April 7th Pursuant to Council action taken on March 10th, city staff and the city attorney have prepared the enclosed Ordinance that would allow the Council to appoint Council members as ex-officio members of the Brookings Swiftel Center Advisory Board. Originally it was thought that this change could be done by resolution; however, the City Attorney did additional research and found an ordinance would be needed to address the proposed membership changes. 87 ORDINANCE NO. 09-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-183 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA AND PERTAINING TO THE DESIGNATION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER TO ATTEND MEETINGS OF THE SWIFTEL CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE 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. Sec. 2-183. Quorum, action, Council Member and County Commission representative to attend meetings. A majority of the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee shall constitute a quorum and it shall be necessary that all official action of the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee shall be approved by a majority of the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee. One of the members of the city council shall be designated by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the city council, to attend the meetings of the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee so that the council may at all times be fully advised of the proceedings of the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee. In addition, the Brookings County Commission may appoint a representative as a non- voting liaison to the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee. The city council member and Brookings County representative so designated shall not be counted for purposes of determination of a quorum and shall not be entitled to vote or take any official action on matters before the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee. II. The provisions of Resolution 65-05 are repealed and superseded by Ordinance Sec. 2- 183. In addition, any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. FIRST READING: SECOND READING: PUBLISHED: CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk 88 Second Readings & Public Hearings: 11. Ordinance No. 05-09: An ordinance regulating ultimate fighting contests in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. TO: City Council & City Manager FROM: Steven Britzman, City Attorney The attached ordinance was drafted to reflect the Council’s collective concerns with the form of the previous ordinance which did not contain medical insurance for participants, licensed or certified referees or any form of safety standard embodied in the ordinance. This proposed ordinance would likely be near the equivalent of the requirements imposed in the State of California for any mixed martial arts matches, but the California Athletic Commission also licenses referees and promoters, and of course, has the population density to justify the Statewide regulation. I spoke with a knowledgeable employee of the California State Athletic Commission who cited a recent example where the medical insurance was very helpful. He indicated the sport is gaining much popularity and apparently their commission is not trying to stop or limit the number of events. There are a couple of insurance companies issuing the type of short-term insurance coverage called for in their State regulations. I fully understand that promoters of smaller revenue generating events may find it difficult to comply with the requirements, but the ordinance was drafted only with the Council’s stated concerns in mind. While there are some highlighted portions, I believe this proposed ordinance should be read in its entirety because of the substantial changes I made, and the remaining highlighted portions do not constitute new changes but areas in the ordinance where I just left the highlighting as it was. Steve ACTION: MOTION TO REMOVE FROM TABLE – ROLL CALL Public Comment, Roll Call 89 ORDINANCE NO. 05-09 REVISED ON 3/17/09 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, however the State of California does regulate mixed martial arts matches, and the mixed martial arts regulations set forth herein of the California State Athletic Commission or equivalent regulations from other State Athletic Commissions are adopted, in addition to the specific regulations contained in this ordinance, as the minimum requirements for mixed martial arts events held in Brookings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that: 90 Section 10-2. Prohibition/Permit Required/Required Insurance Coverage A. No person or other entity shall publicize or promote a mixed martial arts or 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 a mixed martial arts or 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. 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 provides Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000) short-term medical insurance coverage, approved by the City Manager prior to an event involving martial arts fighters. The promoter shall be responsible for payment of any deductible under said policy. In addition, the promoter shall furnish has a general liability policy and excess umbrella insurance coverage totaling a minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. D. All participants shall be at least eighteen (18) years of age and provide proof of their age to the promoter and shall be notified by the promoter of the risks and shall be required to sign a liability waiver in a form acceptable to the City which provides that the participant understands and assumes all risks, and agrees that the City shall not be liable for any damage or liability of any kind resulting from the participant’s participation in the event, match or contest. 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 Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) per incident (Short-term Medical Insurance). 5. A certification of insurance showing the promoter or venue has a general liability insurance policy and/or umbrella liability policy totaling a minimum amount of 91 One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, and the applicant’s insurance shall name the city as an additional named insured. 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. The weight classes applicable to the event, match or contest and a description of the method and criteria to be used to match contestants so that contestants of substantially unequal skill or experience will not compete against each other. 8. A description of the security to be employed at the event, match or contest. 9. Medical staff to be present at the event, match or contest. At a minimum, this staff must include a licensed physician and ambulance on site. 10. A copy of the rules to be enforced, which shall be established by any a nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning matches or contests either nationally or regionally. The rules shall provide safety standards which are equivalent to the safety requirements provided in this ordinance and the protections provided in the California State Athletic Commission Rules appended hereto. If the safety standards set forth in the Appendix to this ordinance are more stringent than the rules set forth above, the more stringent provision shall apply. Section 10-4. Required Rules Any event, match or contest must be conducted in accordance with all rules established by this ordinance and by a any nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning matches or contests either nationally or regionally. The rules shall provide safety standards which are equivalent to the safety protections provided in this ordinance and the protections provided in the California State Athletic Commission Rules appended hereto. Any event, match or contest shall also be conducted in accordance with a set of rules and regulations that must also include the following: A. A prohibition that makes the following acts illegal: 1. A fighter may not strike their opponent with the heel of their palm to the mask of the face. 2. A fighter may not strike their opponent with downward or spiking elbows. 3. A fighter may not kick their opponent’s head once the opponent’s knee touches the ring floor or the opponent is using one of their hands or arms on the mat for support. 4. A fighter may not spike an opponent’s head. 5. A fighter may not use a single hand or fingertip throat choke. 6. A fighter may not use a single digit lock to the fingers or toes. B. A requirement that participants wear the following clothing or equipment: 1. A protective groin cup during all matches (males only). 92 2. A mouth piece. 3. Mixed martial arts style gloves of at least five (5) ounces. C. A prohibition that participants may not wear apparel or equipment which includes metallic and/or hard plastic and/or any edge or surface which could cause injury to the fighters. D. A prohibition that a participant may not participate in another event, match or contest within three (3) days of participating in the permitted event, match or contest. In the following circumstances additional time must expire before the participant may compete: 1. If a fighter was defeated by a Knock Out or TKO there must be a minimum of seven (7) days between the permitted event, match or contest and the prior event, match or contest. 2. If a fighter was knocked or choked unconscious there must be a minimum of thirty (30) days between the permitted event, match or contest and the event, match or contest in which the participant was rendered unconscious. In addition, participants must present a clearance to participate issued by a licensed physician. The physician must be licensed in South Dakota or the state in which the participant resides. 3. If a fighter broke a bone in an event, match or contest there must be a minimum of thirty (30) days between the permitted event, match or contest and the event, match or contest in which the participant broke the bone. In addition, participants must present a clearance to participate issued by a licensed physician. The physician must be licensed in South Dakota or the state in which the participant resides. E. A prohibition that amateur fighters may not compete with professional fighters. A professional fighter is defined as an athlete who has been paid for his/her performance in any event, match or contest that meets the definition of ultimate fighting. Once a participant has been paid for an ultimate fight of any kind the participant cannot be considered an amateur for any type of ultimate fight. F. A requirement that a match or contest will be immediately stopped under any of the following circumstances: 1. The referee/official determines that a participant is taking excessive punishment creating substantial risk of severe injury or any other reason the referee/official believes requires the match or contest be stopped to protect the participants’ safety. 2. If a licensed physician determines that a participant should not continue due to a cut or other injury. 3. The participant “taps out” which is construed as tapping the mat three (3) or more times to indicate his/her desire to end the match or contest. The participant must also be able to terminate the match or contest by verbally indicating that he/she quits or gives up. 93 4. If a participant’s corner feels the participant should not continue and so indicates by throwing a towel into the ring or by other means indicates that the match or contest should end. G. No match or contest shall be more than fifteen (15) minutes in duration and no round shall be more than five (5) minutes in duration. H. No participants shall be paired with an opponent with more than a fifteen percent (15%) deviation in body weight except that participants weighing more than two hundred (200) pounds may be matched against an opponent that weighs no more than twenty-five percent (25%) more or less than the participant. Section 10-5. Official/Referee/Rules The official/referee for any event, match or contest shall be certified or licensed by a national sanctioning body or a regional sanctioning body, such as a State Athletic Commission or a nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning mixed martial arts matches and Contests. The official/referee for any event, match or contest shall follow the rules established by a national sanctioning body or a regional sanctioning body and the safety standards contained herein and appended herto. Section 10-6. Definitions A. Sanctioning Body. A sanctioning body is any nationally recognized organization which engages in sanctioning mixed martial arts matches or contests either nationally or regionally.The Mixed Martial Arts Rules adopted by the California State Athletic Commission and appended hereto shall constitute the minimum protections applicable to mixed martial arts matches or contests in Brookings. The sanctioning body must have adopted a set of rules governing the manner in which the matches or contests will be conducted which include safety standards which are the equivalent of or more stringent than the safety standards contained herein and appended hereto. 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. Mixed Martial Arts/ 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. 94 4. Direct and forceful strikes to the eyes, groin, throat or neck 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 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 also 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 95 APPENDIX APPLICABLE CALIFORNIA STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION RULES ARTICLE 2. SAFETY STANDARDS § 510. Weights and Classes. Atomweight (Willie wt) 106 lbs. or under Super Atomweight (Willie wt.) 106.1 – 109 lbs. Flyweight 109.1 – 112 lbs. Super Flyweight 112.1 – 115 lbs. Bantamweight 115.1 – 118 lbs. Super Bantamweight 118.1 – 122 lbs. Featherweight 122.1 – 126 lbs. Super Featherweight 126.1 – 130 lbs. Lightweight 130.1 – 135 lbs. Super Lightweight 135.1 – 140 lbs. Welterweight 140.1 – 147 lbs. Super Welterweight 147.1 – 154 lbs. Middleweight 154.1 – 161 lbs. Super Middleweight 161.1 – 168 lbs. Light Heavyweight 168.1 – 175 lbs. Super Light Heavyweight 175.1 – 183 lbs. Cruiser Weight 183.1 – 195 lbs. Heavyweight 195.1 – 215 lbs. Super Heavyweight 215.1 lbs. and over The following weight spread is permissible for matchmaking within each weight division. Any greater weight spread requires the approval of the commission. Atomweight (Willie wt) not more than 3 lbs. Super Atomweight (Willie wt.) not more than 3 lbs. Flyweight not more than 3 lbs. Super Flyweight not more than 3 lbs. Bantamweight not more than 4 lbs. Super Bantamweight not more than 4 lbs. Featherweight not more than 4 lbs. Super Featherweight not more than 4 lbs. Lightweight not more than 5 lbs. Super Lightweight not more than 5 lbs. Welterweight not more than 7 lbs. Middleweight not more than 7 lbs. Super Middleweight not more than 7 lbs. Light Heavyweight not more than 7 lbs. Super Light Heavyweight more than 7 lbs. Cruiser Weight not more than 12 lbs. Heavyweight not more than 20 lbs. 96 Super Heavyweight no limit § 512 Rounds; Number; Length; Rest Period. Matches shall not exceed ten two-minute rounds with a one-minute rest period between rounds; however, the commission may permit an additional two rounds for the purpose of championship events. § 513. Contestants Equipment. (a) Male contestants shall wear a foul-proof groin protector. A plastic cup with an athletic supporter is adequate, but an abdominal guard is preferable. Female contestants shall wear foul- proof breast protectors. Plastic breast covers are adequate. Female contestants shall also wear a pelvic protective girdle which shall cover the pubic area, ovaries, coccyx and sides of hips. All contestants shall wear fitted mouthpieces. All contestants shall have short fingernails and toenails. Use of padded footgear that covers the toes is mandatory and shin protectors are optional as agreed in the contract between the martial arts fighter and the promoter. (b) Contestants shall have at least one extra pair of shorts in an opposing color with them at a match, contest, or exhibition. § 514. Gloves. Contestants who weigh 147 pounds or less shall wear eight (8) ounce gloves. Contestants who weigh more than 147 pounds shall wear ten (10) ounce gloves. ARTICLE 3. CONDUCT OF MATCHES, CONTESTS AND EXHIBITIONS § 520. Method of Judging. When judging a martial arts contest, a judge shall give weight to executed punches and kicks. On close or evenly scored rounds, greater weight shall be given to the fighter with the most effective kicks. Referees and judges shall score all contests and determine the winner through the use of the ten-point must system. In this system, the winner of each round receives ten points and the opponent a proportionately less number. If the round is even, each fighter receives ten points. No fraction of points may be given. At the termination of the contest or the termination of each round, as determined by the commission’s representative present at the event, the cards of the judges shall be picked up by the referee and delivered to the commission representative assigned to check the totals. The majority opinion shall be conclusive and if there is no majority then the decision shall be a draw. When the commission representative has completed verifying the score, the ring announcer shall be informed of the decision and shall announce the decision. § 522. Fouls. (a) The following tactics are fouls and are forbidden. Use of these tactics shall result in a warning and loss of points as determined by the referee. (1) Headbutts, elbow strikes, or clubbing, kicks or punches or any other strikes to the groin, attacking with the knees, openhand attacks to the eyes or throat and striking at that part of the body over the kidney or spine or chopping the back of the neck or head. (2) Spitting, biting or, in the referee's discretion, slapping. 97 (3) Palm heel strikes (using the heel of the palm of the hand to deliver a blow to the face). (4) Arm bars. (5) Grabbing or holding onto an opponent's leg or foot, and grabbing or holding onto any other part of the body. (6) Punching or kicking a contestant when he or she is down. A contestant is down when any part of his or her body, other than his or her feet, touch the floor. His or her opponent may continue to attack until the contestant has touched the floor with any part of the body other than the feet. (7) Leg Checking. (Extending the leg to check an opponent's leg or to prevent him from kicking). (8) Purposely going down without being hit. (9) The use of abusive language in the ring. (10) Any unsportsmanlike trick or action that causes any injury to all opponent or referee (11) Attacking on the break. (12) Attacking after the bell or gong has sounded ending the round or when the opponent is out of the ring. (13) Intentionally pushing. shoving or wrestling an opponent out of the ring with any part of the body. (14) Failure to make five kicks per round. (15) Kicks to the joints, linear strikes to the legs and linear strikes across both legs simultaneously. (16) Any use of throws or any takedowns. (17) Continuous dropping of mouthpiece. (18) Holding and hitting. (19) Intentional evasion of contact. (20) Hitting or slapping with an open glove. (21) Any sweeps not executed boot-to-boot. (22) Not throwing any kicks (Legal kicks are considered to be those which are attempts to land hard on a target area of the opponent's body with the intent to do damage.) (b) One or more of the following fouls shall result in disqualification: (1) Groin kicks or punches. (2) Arm bars. (3) Kicking against any joint. (4) Intentional head butts. (5) Use of elbows. (c) Any contestant guilty of any of the foul tactics listed in subsection (a) above in a contest may be disqualified, his or her purse may be withheld from payment and the contestant may be suspended. Disposition of the purse and the penalty to be imposed upon the contestant shall be determined by action of the commission. § 543 Referee’s License. In order to be licensed as a referee, an applicant shall meet the following requirements. (a) Have two years of documented experience refereeing martial arts or kickboxing matches with a minimum of 100 matches refereed. It is not necessary that this experience be obtained by refereeing professional contests. 98 (b) Be found after an examination by a licensed physician to be and mentally fit to referee a martial arts contest and to have uncorrected visual acuity of at least 20/100 in both eyes. Weight shall be proportionate to height in accordance with the standards of the American Medical Association in effect at the time of the effective date of this regulation. (c) Be in good physical condition with the speed and reflexes in the ring necessary for the protection of the fighters. (d) Pass a written examination administered by the commission on the fundamentals of martial arts and kickboxing, refereeing and judging martial arts matches and contests, and California law and regulations relating to martial arts and kickboxing. (e) Perform a demonstration of competency by performing as a referee in a martial arts match before a representative of the commission and two licensed referees. The applicant shall demonstrate knowledge of refereeing techniques and the ability to manage and control a martial arts match. (f) Perform a demonstration of competence in judging by judging at least 50 martial arts or kickboxing contests as verified by a representative of the commission. (g) These requirements may be waived for any applicant who is licensed or approved as a referee by the Professional Kickboxing Association or the World Kickboxing Association. (h) In order to renew a referee's license, a referee shall comply with subsections (b) and (c) in addition to any other requirements for renewal set forth in the law or these regulations. 99 Other Business: 12 Update on BATA transportation facility lease agreement. Staff has been working with the Council and Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) on potential sites for a new public transportation facility. BATA has an opportunity to access funds specifically designated for public transit through the South Dakota Department of Transportation. At the March 10, 2009 Council meeting, staff was directed to draft a land lease agreement for two parcels in the Telkamp Industrial Park and present the draft lease agreement to the council for discussion. Enclosed is a draft of the land lease agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings Area Transit Authority. The lease will be contingent upon BATA’s ability to reach an agreement with Brookings County on the existing facility. Action: Informational 100 Public Transportation Facility Lease Agreement This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2009, by and between City of Brookings, hereinafter referred to as the “LESSOR”, and Brookings Area Transit Authority, hereinafter referred to as “LESSEE”, collectively, the parties to this Agreement will be referred to as the “parties”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the LESSOR owns certain real property, described below, in Brookings, South Dakota, and desires to lease the same to LESSEE; and WHEREAS, the LESSEE desires to lease such property for use in providing transportation services to the citizens of the Brookings area, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE AND THE MUTUAL COVENANTS OF THE PARTIES SET FORTH BELOW, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: LESSOR hereby leases unto the LESSEE, and the LESSEE hereby takes and leases from the LESSOR, the following described real property, including structures located on the premises, under the terms and conditions as set forth below: Lot 8 and Lot 12, Block 1 of the Telkamp Industrial Addition to the Municipality of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. All as shown on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and by this reference incorporated herein. 1. In consideration of the lease of the property heretofore described, the LESSEE agrees to pay the LESSOR the total sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by LESSOR. 2. The term of this lease shall begin on the day of , 2009 and shall remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of , 2009. This lease shall automatically renew for consecutive annual periods under the same terms and conditions unless the Agreement is terminated as provided for below. 3. The LESSEE shall use the herein described real property for the following purpose, to-wit: The property shall be used only in connection with the LESSEE’S operations to provide public transportation services meeting the needs of citizens living in the Brookings, South Dakota, area. 4. In the event LESSEE desires to terminate this Agreement, LESSEE shall give thirty (30) days written notice to LESSOR of LESSEE’S intent to terminate the Agreement. This 101 Agreement will automatically terminate thirty (30) days following LESSEE’S written notice to LESSOR of its intent to terminate this Agreement. 5. LESSOR shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement only upon the breach by LESSEE of any of the terms of this Agreement. In particular, LESSOR shall terminate this Agreement in the event that LESSEE is no longer using the subject property for providing transportation services to the citizens of Brookings. In the event LESSEE breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, LESSOR shall give LESSEE written notice of such breach. LESSEE shall have thirty (30) days to cure or correct the breach of the Agreement to the reasonable satisfaction of LESSOR. This Agreement shall terminate if LESSEE fails to cure or correct the breach of the Agreement to the reasonable satisfaction of LESSOR within the thirty (30) day time period. 6. LESSEE shall employ husbandry practices that shall in no way depreciate the value of the property that is the subject of this Agreement. 7. LESSEE shall not transfer or assign this Agreement except upon the written consent of the LESSOR. 8. LESSEE shall not sublease any portion of the subject property without the written consent and agreement of LESSOR. 9. LESSEE shall not make any improvements on the real property covered by this Agreement without the written consent and agreement of the LESSOR. 10. LESSEE shall at his own expense be required to and shall do whatever is necessary to prevent the growth or spreading of noxious weeds during the period of this Agreement. 11. LESSOR shall not be responsible for any repairs or maintenance that may become necessary to establish or continue the supply of utilities to the property or improvements. 12. LESSEE agrees to hold harmless and indemnify LESSOR, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all actions, suits, damages, liability or other proceedings which may arise as the result of the negligence, misconduct, error, omission or use of the premises by LESSEE, or any officer, agent or employee of LESSEE. This section does not require LESSEE to be responsible for or defend against claims of damages arising solely from errors or omissions of LESSOR, its officers, agents or employees. 13. LESSEE shall indemnify, defend, and hold LESSOR harmless from and against any claims, demands, liabilities, damages, or expenses arising out of any alleged contamination of water, land, or air on or about the premises resulting from the disposal of hazardous waste or other substance (whether subsequently determined to be hazardous wastes or substance) caused by the operation of the transportation business or any other business operated on the premises, including any business conducted on the premises as a result of LESSEE subleasing a portion of the property. 102 14. It is the responsibility of the LESSEE to maintain the subject property and physical improvements in good working order and condition. LESSEE agrees than no representation as to condition or repair of the demised premises, and no promise to alter, repair, or improve the demised premises has been made by LESSOR expect as contained in this Agreement. LESSEE shall keep the leased premises, during the term of this Agreement, in good repair, and at the termination of this Agreement, yield and deliver up the leased premises in like condition as when taken, reasonable wear and tear expected. Additionally, LESSOR may charge a reasonable fee for maintenance services if LESSEE, after receiving written notice of the specified conditions to be corrected, and an estimate of the charges to be imposed by LESSOR if the services are performed by LESSOR or LESSOR’S agent, fails to comply within thirty (30) days. 15. If the leased premises are partially damaged or totally destroyed by fire, other casualty or Act of God, LESSOR may, at its option, repair the demised premises with reasonable dispatch or immediately terminate this Agreement by written notice to LESSEE or LESSEE’s employees, invitees, or other persons due to the leased premises becoming out of repair or arising from leakage or gas, steam, water, or sewer pipes, or from defective wiring. LESSOR shall not be responsible or liable to LESSEE for any loss or damage that may be occasioned by or through the acts or omissions of persons occupying adjoining premises or any part of the premises adjacent to or connected with the demised premises. 16. LESSEE shall be required to maintain general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 or more and general property insurance in the amount of $200,000 or more throughout the term of this lease covering the leased property and structures. LESSOR shall be named as a co-insured on any policy of property insurance covering the leased property and structures. 17. LESSOR and LESSEE understand and agree that the leased property and structures are subject to the terms and conditions of an Agreement for Construction of a Public Transportation Facility between LESSOR, LESSEE and the State of South Dakota. In addition to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement, LESSOR and LESSEE agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Construction of Public Transit Facility. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement this ____ day of _____________, 20___. CITY OF BROOKINGS, South Dakota A Municipal Corporation By: Scott Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk MANAGER By: _________________________________ Brookings Area Transit Authority 104 Other Business: 13. Discussion regarding Residential Wind Energy. There has been some interest expressed locally, as well as regionally, about the development and promotion of wind energy for private residential use. This involves residences having wind turbines that generate electricity for their private residential use. As communities, businesses, and private individuals become more aware of environmental sustainability, wind energy is seen as a “green” measure for alternative energy, even on a small scale for private, residential use. Still, the use of private wind energy is rare in South Dakota communities. In addition to providing alternative energy, one of the issues involved with developing private wind energy is the placement of wind turbines in neighborhoods. New technology appears to be making them smaller but their size, height, and location remains an important consideration affected by zoning regulations. Another issue involves safety considerations regarding electrical connections and hook-up of turbines to household electrical systems as well as the possibility of the private party “selling” back excess generated energy to the utility company. Attached is some additional information about this topic. Issue: Allow small or individual wind energy systems on residential lots within the city. Background: Technology needed to harness the power of the wind has advanced in recent years. This new technology has made it possible to develop new turbines or Wind Energy Conversion systems (WECs) that may be able to be used in urban and suburban areas. WECs are usually divided into two groups; small and large wind energy systems. Small WECs are used to power farms, homes and businesses and are used in nonrural applications. A WEC system would usually be considered as an accessory use to some principal use already established on a parcel. Specifics: Land use impacts that always need to be considered when adopting local regulations include noise, safety, aesthetics and adjacent property value. Noise from a small turbine is generally in the 45-db range but can vary depending upon the wind speed. Cities that allow WECs usually have a provision for noise. The difficulty in regulating this characteristic is providing the equipment and training in how to measure this in the field. In addition, some models are noisier than others or may make more noise at different wind speeds depending upon blade design, etc. Some cities require greater setbacks to offset this impact on adjacent properties. Safety concerns relate to structure failure, electrical failures and climbing potential. If professionally installed, structure and electrical failures are rare but a “fall radius” 105 provision is a very common requirement. Fencing to deter climbing is another common provision. Aesthetics is a crucial issue with WECs. Individual views on what is or isn’t aesthetic vary widely. In addition, the fact that a turbine needs to be placed above any adjacent structure or tree in order to access the wind also makes it unable to be hidden or screened. Typically, small WECs must be mounted at least 25 to 35 feet above surrounding objects and sometimes 50 to 120 feet above so that they perform as advertised. Turbine or structure appearance is another component that should be addressed. Tower design such as lattice or monopole is important. Color and lighting are issues that are commonly addressed too. Property values will invariably be part of any argument within a neighborhood and it is one factor that is hard to determine statistically. It is quite certain that any WEC system will have a visual impact when installed within the perimeter of a “typical” Brookings neighborhood. In conclusion, the South Dakota PUC sent Brian Rounds, staff analyst for the Tower Working Group, to present their model wind energy tower regulations at the 2008 Annual Planners Conference in Watertown. This model ordinance is attached. Brookings and other cities around the state have been in an information gathering mode in regards to small WECs and are still searching for turbine design variations that may be more acceptable in an urban setting. Action: Informational 117 Other Business: 14. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings County establishing a Rail Authority. To: Mayor and Council Members, Jeff Weldon, City Manager From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney Re: Regional Railroad Authority—Significant statutes pertaining to regional railroad authorities are set forth below 49-17A-14. Powers of political subdivisions in aid of regional authority. Any subdivision for which an authority has been created may: (1) Lend or donate money to the authority; (2) Provide that all or a portion of the taxes or funds available to the subdivision for railroad purposes, be transferred or paid directly to the authority; (3) Cause water, sewer or drainage facilities, or any other facilities which it is authorized to provide, to be furnished adjacent to or in connection with such railroads or facilities; (4) Dedicate, sell, convey, or lease any of its interest in any property, or grant easements, licenses, or any other rights or privileges therein to the authority; (5) Furnish, dedicate, close, pave, install, grade, regrade, plan or replan streets, roads, roadways and walks from established streets or roads to such railroad facilities; (6) Aid and cooperate with the authority in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation of railroad facilities; (7) Enter into agreements with the authority regarding action to be taken by the subdivision pursuant to the provisions of this section. 49-17A-15. Corporate powers of authority. A regional authority may: (1) Sue and be sued, have a seal, and have perpetual succession; (2) Execute such contracts, other instruments, and take such action as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Every authority may exercise such powers as are necessary or incidental to carry out the purposes of this chapter. 49-17A-16. Planning, acquisition and operation of railroads and facilities - Acquisition of property. 118 A regional authority may plan, establish, acquire, develop, construct, purchase, enlarge, improve, maintain, equip, operate, regulate, and protect its railroads, and railroad facilities used or useful in the operation of the railroad. For such purposes an authority may acquire by purchase, gift, devise, lease, condemnation real or personal property or any interest therein. 49-17A-21. Annual certification of tax levy for authority - Levy of tax - Collection. An authority may certify annually to the governing bodies the amount of tax to be levied by said governing bodies for railroad purposes. Each subdivision shall levy the amount certified, pursuant to provisions of law authorizing municipalities and other political subdivisions of this state to levy taxes for such purposes. The levy may not exceed the maximum levy permitted by the laws of this state for such purposes. Each subdivision shall collect the taxes certified by a railroad authority in the same manner as other taxes are levied, collected and paid to the railroad authority. 49-17A-21.1. Zones of benefit - Tax levy applied to. The authority may, in connection with the certification of an annual mill levy pursuant to § 49-17A-21, designate various zones of benefit or geographical portions of the member subdivisions which, in the judgment of the authority, will be or have been benefited by projects. The authority may then certify that such annual levy be applied only to such benefited area. 49-17A-22. Maximum tax levy - County levy not applied in subdivision making levy. In subdivisions which are parties to an agreement creating a regional railroad authority, a levy, in addition to all other levies authorized by law, not to exceed two dollars and forty cents per thousand dollars of taxable valuation of property in such subdivisions, may be made for such purposes. A county levy may not apply to any other subdivision making such levy hereunder. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call 119 AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE BROOKINGS REGIONAL RAILROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY AGREEMENT made and entered into this ____ day of _______________, 2009, among the political subdivisions which have executed this Agreement (the “Members”) pursuant to a Resolution of the governing body of each political subdivision authorizing such execution after due notice and hearing as established by the affidavit of publication attached hereto. (Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit A are the Resolutions referred to above). WITNESS: WHEREAS the parties to this Agreement are desirous of maintaining and improving the railroad in or adjacent to the respective jurisdiction through the use of a Regional Railroad Authority as allowed by South Dakota law, SDCL Chapter 49-17A. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this agreement agree to establish the Brookings Regional Railroad Safety Authority (BRRSA) under the terms and conditions following: ARTICLE 1. Creation, Purpose and Powers That there is hereby created a Regional Railroad Authority incorporated pursuant to the provisions of SDCL Chapter 49-17A as a political subdivision of the State of South Dakota authorized to exercise a part of the sovereign powers of the State; which entity shall conduct its affairs in accordance with SDCL Chapter 49-17A for the purposes authorized therein and shall be empowered to exercise all powers granted by said Chapter as amended, except as specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement or the By-laws. ARTICLE 2. Name That the name of the Regional Railroad Authority created hereby shall be the Brookings Regional Railroad Safety Authority (BRRSA). ARTICLE 3. Members That the names of the political subdivisions of the State of South Dakota which have approved this Agreement and are initial members of the BRRSA are as follows: County of Brookings and the City of Brookings. That as allowed by law, any political subdivision qualified to join the BRRSA subsequent to the date of this Agreement shall so indicate its desire by depositing with the Chairman of the BRRSA a supplement to this Agreement executed by such political subdivision and a Resolution of the governing body (as defined by South Dakota law) of such political subdivision authorizing such execution. A political subdivision shall become a member of the BRRSA upon approval of its executed supplement to this Agreement by the Members of the BRRSA and the filing of the same with the Secretary of State of South Dakota. City Council Packet March 24, 2009 120 ARTICLE 4. Representatives That the names and address of the persons initially appointed by the Resolutions approving this Agreement to act as representatives of the subdivisions in the exercise of their powers as members of the BRRSA are as follows: COUNTY OF BROOKINGS: CITY OF BROOKINGS: ARTICLE 5. Registered Agent and Office That the name and address of the initial registered office and the name of the registered agent at such office are as follows: Jeffrey W. Weldon City Manager, City of Brookings P.O. Box 270 Brookings, South Dakota 57006 ARTICLE 6. Board of Commissioners That the Board of Commissioners of the BRRSA shall be comprised of seven (7) commissioners elected by the representatives’ of the Members, each member being entitled to select three (3) Commissioners, with the additional Commissioner selected by the joint agreement of the Members. The Commissioners shall be elected for a term in the same manner as the original election. Each Commissioner shall hold office until his successor has been selected and qualified. That the names and addresses of the initial Board of Commissioners are as follows: NAME ADDRESS PHONE ARTICLE 7. Liability of Members That the political subdivisions which are Members of the BRRSA and their commissioners, council members, officers and agents shall not be liable for any obligations of the BRRSA. City Council Packet March 24, 2009 121 ARTICLE 8. Bylaws and Rules That the commissioners of the Authority shall adopt and attend such rules and By-Laws that they deem appropriate to govern the operating of the BRRSA. ARTICLE 9. Amendments This Agreement may be amended upon approval by a majority of the members; each member being entitled to one (1) vote to be exercised by a majority of its governing body. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have executed this Agreement in sufficient copies for each Member to have an original with attached certified copies of the resolutions to be sent to the Secretary of the State of South Dakota as required by SDCL 49-17A-4, each of which constitute an original copy but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Dated this ____ day of ______________, 2009. COUNTY OF BROOKINGS By: Its: Chairman ATTEST (SEAL) Dated this ____ day of ______________, 2009. CITY OF BROOKINGS By: Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor ATTEST: (SEAL) __________________________ Shari Thornes, City Clerk City Council Packet March 24, 2009 122 Other Business: 15. Discussion and possible action on Storm Water prioritized project list and discussion of land acquisition, funding and design. 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 City Council Packet March 24, 2009 123 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 GOALS FOR THIS COUNCIL MEETING 1. Drainage Improvement Project Ranking: The City Council adopted the Project Ranking System and the criteria weighting at their work session on February 24, 2009. The Draft #1 of the Drainage Improvement Project Ranking results were discussed and placed on the City of Brookings website for public viewing. This Council meeting will entail public input, Council discussion and adoption of the Draft #1 of the Drainage Improvement Project Ranking results. A public notice of this meeting was sent to interested persons and a press release was issued for this work session. 2. Next Steps and Budget Discussion: The Storm Drainage fee was established for the purposes of raising revenue for storm drainage purposes and is tracked through the Storm Drainage budget. The current 2009 unit financial charge for the drainage fee is 0.00036. The unit financial charge was doubled in 2006 from its previous rate of 0.00018. The adopted 2009 storm drainage budget is summarized as follows: Revenue: $538,855 (Approximately $500,000 is current revenue from drainage fees) Expenditures: Personnel Services: $93,831 (1FTE from Street Dept. and .3 FTE from Engineering) Consulting/Engineering: $50,000 ($15,000 to be used for 15th St S detention pond drainage plan) Maintenance Storm Sewer: $55,000 (paid to BMU for cleaning of pipe system) DENR Storm Water Phase II: $1,500 (BMU stuffer, psas, stenciling) Land: $126,000 Storm Sewer Improvements: $200,000 As an implementation plan, staff is recommending the following strategy for discussion: • Identify the top three projects as first priority City Council Packet March 24, 2009 124 • Begin design, acquire necessary easements, and possibly construct projects in 2009. This will take some time to gain easements, perform ground survey and develop plans and specs. The design work will most likely be farmed out to local consultants. • Begin potential land acquisitions and make partial payment for land in 2009 (balance of the payment can be budgeted and paid in 2010). • Bid and construct top three projects in 2009 or 2010 (depending on fund availability). This will include discussion during the 2010 budget sessions regarding funding for the three projects. Some funding options include: supplement with general fund dollars, bonding, SRF loan where the drainage fee could pay back the loan amount or increase the drainage fee. A more accurate engineer’s estimate will be established as the projects are designed with final quantities. The engineer’s estimate can be used to determine the order in which the projects will be constructed. Action: Motion to Approve, request public comment, roll call Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan February 24, 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 Damage:........................................................................ 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 24, 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 Damage City of Brookings February 24, 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 24, 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 24, 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 24, 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. City of Brookings February 24, 2009 6 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan Table 2: Scoring Table for the ‘Occupant Evacuation’ Category. Occupants Evacuated Score 0 0 1 to 10 1 11 to 20 2 21 to 30 3 13 to 40 4 41 or more 5 Property Damage: 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. City of Brookings February 24, 2009 7 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 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 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 24, 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. City of Brookings February 24, 2009 9 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 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 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. City of Brookings February 24, 2009 10 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 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 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. 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 City of Brookings February 24, 2009 11 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan 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 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 24, 2009 12 Drainage Improvement Prioritization Guidelines for the Brookings Master Drainage Plan City of Brookings February 24, 2009 13 Drainage Improvement Project Ranking (1st draft)Date:2/24/2009Enviro ImpactBuildingsOccupantsProperty DmgTraffic ImpactLocationCost vs. BudgetReduced MaintInfrastructureCitizen SafetyWt =0.40Wt =0.70Wt =0.90Wt =0.50Wt =0.70Wt =0.90Wt =1.00Wt =0.40Wt =0.50Wt =1.20Capital CostDrainage ImprovementsRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultRankResultTotalRank5 yr Storm100 yr StormWest 2nd Street & West Folsom Street: Xtra Space Storage*31.2010.7010.9042.0010.7043.6033.0031.2052.5022.4018.208$1,449,134$1,956,624Hammond Avenue & Horner Avenue, North of Squire Court41.6032.1032.7031.5010.7021.8033.0031.2031.5033.6019.704$240,000LeFevre Drive52.0000.0010.9010.5053.5021.8044.0031.2031.5033.6019.007$80,165$100,787Garden Square Apartment & Garden Village Townhouse Area31.2032.1054.5042.0000.0043.6055.0052.0031.5056.0027.902$38,003$541,4776th Avenue Viaduct under DM&E Railroad52.0000.0000.0010.5010.7000.0055.0041.6000.0044.8014.6012$10,000$10,000Medary Avenue South & 20th Street South*10.4021.4021.8021.0053.5043.6022.0031.2021.0033.6019.505$1,129,641Medary Avenue & Intersections of 1st Street and 2nd Street52.0010.7021.8021.0042.8032.7022.0010.4042.0022.4017.8010$553,553$824,73715th Street South & 7th Avenue South (Detention Pond)*10.4042.8043.6042.0021.4043.6022.0031.2010.5022.4019.903$2,243,431$4,962,629Southland Lane & 12th Street South Detention*31.2053.5054.5052.5053.5054.5033.0031.2010.5033.6028.001$1,789,304$4,779,52417th Avenue South and Sawgrass Drive41.6021.4021.8031.5042.8021.8033.0010.4010.5022.4017.2011$445,004$1,027,38417th Avenue South and Pebble Beach Drive41.6021.4021.8031.5042.8021.8055.0010.4010.5022.4019.206$37,654$51,023West 20th Street South and Main Avenue South41.6010.7010.9021.0000.0043.6055.0052.0042.0011.2018.009$13,239$30,761$8,148,651$14,523,992 City Council Packet March 24, 2009 140 16. Adjourn.