HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009_11_17 CC PKTCity Council Packet
November 17, 2009
1
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. – Work Session
6:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base
through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
**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. Swiftel Center architect presentation.
2. Review of second penny sales tax split issues (25/75).
3. Review of City Subsidy application process and policies.
4. City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports.
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.*
6. Council Invites & Obligations.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for
action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A
majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Record of Council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items:*
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 110-09, updating the EEOC Statement.
D. Action on Resolution No. 111-09, for 2010 Dental Insurance Contribution
Rates.
E. Action on an appointment to the Human Rights Committee.
F. Action on an amendment to the Police Union Contract.
G. Action to approve a Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Valley View
Addition.
H. Action on Resolution No. 112-09, a Resolution fixing time and place for Hearing
Upon Assessment Roll for Street Assessment Project 2008-04STA (East/West
Alley from 6th Street to 7th Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
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
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
2
Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms
and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation.
Presentations, Special Requests/Invites & Reports
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
First Reading**
**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. 30-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the
definition of a Coffeehouse. Public Hearing: December 8, 2009
8. Ordinance No. 31-09: An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment
with 3 units on the west 183 feet of the east 288 feet of the south 140 feet of Block 11,
Parkdale Home Second Addition (208 West 8th Street). Public Hearing: December 8,
2009
Second Readings/Public Hearings
9. Ordinance No. 27-09: Budget Amendment #2, an Ordinance Authorizing a
Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009 Budget for the purpose of providing for
additional funds for the operation of the City.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 28-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to off-street parking requirements for a two-family dwelling for
the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
11. Ordinance No. 29-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business
and industrial districts for the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
12. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No.115-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real
Property to Private Person (Lyle Johnson – Nichols property).
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
3
13. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No. 116-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease
Real Property (South Dakota Ag Experiment Station – Airport).
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
Other Business
14. TABLED – Resolution No. 106-09, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 4
(CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project,
Rounds Construction.
Motion to remove from Table
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
15. Action on Resolution No. 113-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO#1 Final) for 2009-04STA Alley Assessment Project (from 11th Avenue to 12th
Avenue between 1st Street and 2nd Street), Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
16. Action on Resolution No. 114-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO#2 Final) for 2009-02STA 15th Street South, Camelot Drive, and Christine Avenue
Street Assessment Project, Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
17. Action on Resolution No. 117-09, Creating Capital Reserves for Governmental Funds.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
18. Action on Resolution No. 118-09, accepting a Gift of Real Property to the City of
Brookings, South Dakota.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
19. Action to approve the Fixed Price Technical Services Agreement; I-29 Corridor Study.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Discussion and possible action on a funding pledge for the proposed McCrory Gardens
Visitors Center.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
4
21. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council
Tim Reed, Mayor
Mike Bartley, Deputy Mayor & Council Member
Tom Bezdeichek, Council Member
John Kubal, Council Member
Mike McClemans, Council Member
Jael Thorpe, Council Member
Julie Whaley, Council Member
Council Staff
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Steven Britzman, City Attorney
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday @ 1pm, Thursday @ 7pm, Friday @ 9pm, and Saturday @ 1pm.
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 three (3) working days
prior to the meeting.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
5
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work Sessions are open to the public. During the Work Session the city staff would brief the Council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Swiftel Center architect presentation.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Updated schematic design and cost estimates; Swiftel expansion
Pursuant to previous Council action whereby you directed staff to develop an updated
schematic diagram and cost estimates, we have completed that and this information is
being transmitted herewith.
We had JLG Architects review the Swiftel expansion information and they will make a
presentation on the updates at the work session on November 17. We hired JLG as
they were the firm that initially did the work in conjunction with VenuWorks for the
initial feasibility market study for the proposed project. For the most part, the basic
design of the expansion is very similar but this update contemplates some options as
well as updating projected construction costs.
The following are some of the schematic design differences in the update from the
initial project:
-The VenuWorks study did not envision a private hotel attached to the southeast side
of the building. The HVS study envisioned such a hotel partner as does this update.
-The hotel would be built privately with a ground lease or a property sale to the hotel.
The new site plan envisions a hotel footprint and additional parking for the hotel. Staff
has been visiting with two hotel developers relative to possible hoteliers who would
build on the site.
-This update assumes the City will acquire the County Resource Center portion of the
Swiftel Center, using this space for additional meeting rooms, office space, and storage.
-The initial VenuWorks study envisioned a ballroom of 12,000 square feet. The HVS
study and this update provides for a ballroom with an option of 10,000 square feet.
-The initial VenuWorks study envisioned six, separate break-out rooms. The HVS study
and this update provides for an option of five break-out rooms.
-This update envisions some maintenance replacements and upgrades to the existing
portion of the Swiftel that are not part of the expansion, but due to the building’s age,
should be improved. It would be logical to wrap these improvements into a larger
project for more efficient costs. They include replacement of the front sidewalk, adding
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
6
a front entrance vestibule, replacing the tile floor in the south concourse and main
lobby, kitchen removal in the CRC, adding a movable divider wall in the CRC, new
flooring in the CRC, and update/upgrade of the existing restroom fixtures. Some of
these items will eventually need to be done regardless of whether or not any building
expansion occurs. They are necessary just to update and maintain the building over
time. For these reasons, the revised cost is more.
The following are budgetary revisions:
-The revised budget is much more detailed in scope and divides the project into several
budgetary categories. They are:
Part 1 new construction $5,159,397
Part 1 renovation to existing $ 639,636
Part 2 new green rooms and storage $ 923,408
Part 2 covered marshalling area $ 479,054
Sitework $ 675,485
TOTAL $7,876,981
-The VenuWorks study had the following cost estimates:
East addition, new construction remodeling $5,678,240
Circulation area, green rooms, storage $ 724,732
New east parking lot (sitework) $ 368,280
TOTAL $6,771,252
Mr. Dan Miller of JLG Architects will be at the work session to further describe these
changes.
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
SD Deducts
Exterior Site Development 675,485.05
Total Cost Associated: 675,485.05
1/2 Portion: 337,742.53
Footing 3,808.00
Foundation 10,880.00
6" Granular Fill 9,190.00
Thickened Slab 7,664.00
CMU Exterior Wall 17,680.00
Misc. Steel 7,223.00
Bar Joist Decking ‐
Exterior Structure ‐
Wood Cap/Blocking 783.00
Insulation‐Exterior Wall 1,273.00
Roof Clad ‐
Parapet Cap ‐
Sealed Concrete Floor 919.00
Interior Paint 1,949.00
Fire Suppression System 4,172.00
Electrical Budget 15,053.00
Cold Storage Earthwork 1,790.00
Total budgeted estimate: 82,384.00
JLG 09081 ‐ Swiftel Center Expansion
Cold Storage Building Costs
East Parking Cost Split
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 1 of 8SD Estimate Detail (Prelim)Date:Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountDivision 02 ‐ Existing ConditionsTotals from Division below37,516$ 3,450$ 26,468$ 2,150$ ‐$ 5,448$ ‐$ 02 40 Demo & Structure Moving‐$ Demo Bldg Exterior Envelope (P/C)0.75 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Demo Building Interiors‐$ New Openings in Exisitng Walls4.50 210 SF 945$ SF‐$ 210 SF 945$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Demo Floor Slab 7.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Demo Floor Structure/Seating 9.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Concrete Steps 25.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Demo Stairs 9.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Roof Demolition 10.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Demo Interior Walls 3.50 1,400 SF 4,900$ SF‐$ 1,400 SF 4,900$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Drs/Frms ‐ Single 75.00 7EA525$ 1EA75$ 6EA450$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Drs/Frms ‐ Double100.00 12 EA1,200$ 5EA500$ 3EA300$ 4EA400$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Demo Ramped Floor5.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Floor Finishes0.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Lobby #1 VCT 0.67 6,211 SF 4,161$ SF‐$ 6,211 SF 4,161$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Lobby #2 VCT 0.67 2,810 SF 1,883$ SF‐$ 2,810 SF 1,883$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Prefunction Space 0.67 2,810 SF 1,883$ SF‐$ 2,810 SF 1,883$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Female 1.08 535 SF 578$ SF‐$ 535 SF 578$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Male 1.08 268 SF 289$ SF‐$ 268 SF 289$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Female 1.08 211 SF 228$ SF‐$ 211 SF 228$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Male 1.08 238 SF 257$ SF‐$ 238 SF 257$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Interior Mtg Renovation 0.50 6,600 SF 3,300$ SF‐$ 6,600 SF 3,300$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Ceiling Finishes 0.75 6,600 SF 4,950$ SF‐$ 6,600 SF 4,950$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom Wall Tile Demo (based on 7')0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Female 1.08 770 SF 832$ SF‐$ 770 SF 832$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Male 1.08 504 SF 544$ SF‐$ 504 SF 544$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Female 1.08 462 SF 499$ SF‐$ 462 SF 499$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Male 1.08 434 SF 469$ SF‐$ 434 SF 469$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Site Demolition‐$ Sawcut Concrete Walks 10.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Concrete Walks 1.25 SF 2,875$ 1,500 SF 1,875$ SF‐$ 800 SF 1,000$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Sawcut Concrete Drives 10.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Concrete Drives 1.50 3,632 SF 5,448$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 3,632 SF 5,448$ Remove Concrete Utility Pads 1.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Sawcut Bituminous Pavement 5.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Bituminous Pavement 1.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 6.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Bollards 100.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Concrete Stairs 3.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Concrete Stoops 5.00 350 SF 1,750$ 200 SF 1,000$ SF‐$ 150 SF 750$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Retaining Wall ‐ 10' H 200.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Retaining Wall ‐ 4' H 100.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Fence @ Conc. Wall 4.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Fence 4.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Guard/Handrails @ Stairs5.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Sanitary Sewer MH 600.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Sanitary 8" PVC w/ Earthwk15.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove Hydrant & 6" Gate Valve‐$ Salvage for Relocation 650.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove 4"Gate Valve 350.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove 8" DIP Watermain 32.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove 6" DIP Watermain 31.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Remove 4" DIP Watermain 30.00 0lf‐$ lf‐$ lf‐$ lf‐$ lf‐$ lf‐$ Remove Natural Gas Meter‐$ Salvage for Relocation 250.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Natural Gas Line 18.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ Mechanical Demolition‐$ 11/5/2009SITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityJLG 09081 ‐ Swiftel Center ExpansionPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantity
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 2 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityFire Protection‐$ Remove Bldg Entrance 2,500.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Existing Wet Pipe 0.50 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ Plumbing Demolition‐$ Remove Water Closets 90.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Urinals 90.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Urinal Trough 90.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Lavatories 65.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Janitor Sink 65.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Showers 75.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Wall Carriers55.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove Piping, Insulation‐$ And Cap "As Required" 150.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ HVAC Demolition ‐$ Remove HW Piping, Insul. & Access. ‐$ PH 1 Remodel 0.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ PH 2 Remodel 0.25 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove Ductwork, Insul. & Access. ‐$ PH 1 Remodel 1.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ PH 2 Remodel 0.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Electrical Demotion ‐$ General Electrical Demolition 1.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Remove/Salvage Exist Panels 300.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Remove/Salvage Exist Xfmrs 300.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ Division 03 ‐ ConcreteTotals from Division below363,187$ 263,123$ ‐$ 77,526$ 22,538$ ‐$ ‐$ Perimeter Concrete Footins‐$ 2'‐6" Width (Green Room) 28.00 469 LF 13,132$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 173 LF 4,844$ 296 LF 8,288$ LF‐$ 2'‐6" Width (Cold Storage) 28.00 136 LF 3,808$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 136 LF 3,808$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 2'‐6" Width (BallRoom) 28.00 395 LF 11,060$ 395 LF 11,060$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 5'‐0" Width 55.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 6'‐0" Width 65.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 7'‐0" Width 75.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ Spread Footings‐$ 8' x 8' 950.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 4' x 4' Budgeted Placeholder 250.00 69 EA17,250$ 60 EA15,000$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 9EA2,250$ EA‐$ 2' x 2' 60.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Concrete Foundation Walls 16.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Green Room 16.00 1,615 SF 25,840$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 865 SF 13,840$ 750 SF 12,000$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 16.00 680 SF 10,880$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 680 SF 10,880$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Meeting Room 16.00 1,975 SF 31,600$ 1,975 SF 31,600$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Item with subitems‐$ 6" Comp Granular Fill & V.B. 5.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Green Room 5.00 4,815 LF 24,075$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 4,815 SF 24,075$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Cold Storage 5.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ SF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Ball/Meeting Room 5.00 22,406 LF 112,030$ 22,406 LF 112,030$ LF‐$ SF‐$ LF‐$ 0LF‐$ Thickened Slab0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Green Room 4.17 4,815 SF 20,079$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 20,079$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 4.17 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Ball/Meeting Room 4.17 22,406 SF 93,433$ 22,406 SF 93,433$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 04 ‐ MasonryTotals from Division below255,297$ 158,198$ ‐$ 95,019$ 2,080$ ‐$ ‐$ 04 20 Unit Masonry‐$ 8" CMU ‐ Rock Face to Match‐$ Existing Exterior Wall 15.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ CMU Exterior Walls (w/ Air Barrier)‐$ 8" Green Room 13.00 4,975 SF 64,675$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 62,595$ 160 SF 2,080$ SF‐$ 8" Cold Storage 13.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 8" Ball/Meeting Room 13.00 3,950 SF 51,350$ 3,950 SF 51,350$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 12" 16.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Interior CMU Walls‐$ Interior CMU Walls ‐ 8" (Grn. Rm.)12.00 2,702 SF 32,424$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,702 SF 32,424$ SF‐$ SF‐$
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 3 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityInterior CMU Walls ‐ 8"(Ball/Mtg.) 12.00 8,904 SF 106,848$ 8,904 SF 106,848$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 05 ‐ MetalsTotals from Division below1,153,598$ 758,866$ 20,748$ 146,724$ 227,260$ ‐$ ‐$ 00 00 Division Subheading‐$ Misc. Steel ‐$ Sq/ft Allow Green Room 3.93 4,815 SF 18,923$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 18,923$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Sq/ft Allow Cold Storage 3.93 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Sq/ft Allow Mtg/Ballroom 3.93 22,406 SF 88,056$ 22,406 SF 88,056$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Roof Structure (Bar Joist & Decking)‐$ Green Room 6.93 4,815 SF 33,368$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 33,368$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 6.93 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Mtg/Ballroom 6.93 22,406 SF 155,274$ 22,406 SF 155,274$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Steel Exterior Structure‐$ Green Room 18.90 4,815 SF 91,004$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 91,004$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 18.90 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Meeting/Ballroom 18.90 22,406 SF 423,473$ 22,406 SF 423,473$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ New Roof Girder Truss ‐ 80LF Span0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Marshalling Structure 20.66 11,000 SF 227,260$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 11,000 SF 227,260$ SF‐$ ‐$ 05 40 Cold‐Formed Metal Framing‐$ 6" Metal Stud Wall Framing‐$ Restroom at Green Room 6.50 196 SF 1,274$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 196 SF 1,274$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Furring at Green Room Ext. 0.89 2,422 SF 2,156$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,422 SF 2,156$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Furring at Mtg/Ball Exterior0.89 4,438 SF 3,950$ 4,438 SF 3,950$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Interior Frame Part Mtg/Ball 6.50 16,748 SF 108,862$ 13,556 SF 88,114$ 3,192 SF 20,748$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 06 ‐ Wood, Plastics & CompositesTotals from Division below3,339$ 1,778$ ‐$ 1,562$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 06 10 Rough Carpentry‐$ Exterior Wall Sheathing‐$ at Mtl. Wall Panels 2.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Wood Blocking at Parpapet Caps 4.50 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Green Room 4.50 173 SF 779$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 173 SF 779$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 4.50 174 SF 783$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 174 SF 783$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Meeting/Ballroom 4.50 395 SF 1,778$ 395 SF 1,778$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 07 ‐ Thermal & Moisture Protection 278,887$ 210,086$ ‐$ 68,801$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 07 10 Dampproofing & Waterproofing‐$ Waterproofing at BG Conc. Walls8.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Waterproofing at Rockface CMU 8.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Drain Tile 8.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ 07 20 Thermal Protection‐$ Rigid Insulation‐$ at Below Grade Walls 1.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at CMU Walls (Green Room) 1.50 2,422 SF 3,633$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,422 SF 3,633$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Exterior insulation above grade‐$ Green Room 0.78 2,076 SF 1,619$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,076 SF 1,619$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 0.78 1,632 SF 1,273$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,632 SF 1,273$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cold Storage 0.78 3,804 SF 2,967$ 3,804 SF 2,967$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 07 40 Roofing & Siding Panels‐$ Cladding, preformed‐Grn Rm 4.38 2,076 SF 9,093$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,076 SF 9,093$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cladding, preformed‐Cold Stor.4.38 1,632 SF 7,148$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,632 SF 7,148$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Cladding, preformed Mtg/Ball 4.38 4,740 SF 20,761$ 4,740 SF 20,761$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 07 50 Membrane Roofing‐$ Roofing ‐ 5 Ply Built Up & 2 Ply‐$ Vapor Barrier & Insul.‐ Gn Rm. 8.00 4,815 SF 38,520$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 4,815 SF 38,520$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Vapor Barrier & Insul. ‐Cold Stor.8.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Vapor Barrier & Insul. ‐Cold Stor.8.00 22,406 SF 179,248$ 22,406 SF 179,248$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 07 60 Flashing & Sheet Metal‐$ Prefinshed Mtl Parapet Cap ‐ 6" 14.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Prefinshed Mtl Parapet Cap ‐ 12" 18.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Green Room 18.00 173 LF 3,114$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 173 LF 3,114$ LF‐$ LF‐$
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 4 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityCold Storage 18.00 136 LF 2,448$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 136 LF 2,448$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Meeting/Ballroom 18.00 395 LF 7,110$ 395 LF 7,110$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Prfinished Mtl FasciaLF LF LF LF LF LF‐$ Panels / Parapet Cap ‐ 24" 22.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Pref. Mtl Fascia Trim at Canopies22.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Thru Wall Flashing6.50 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 07 80 Fire & Smoke Protection‐$ Misc. Shell Components‐$ (Caulk, Sealants, Safing, Exp. Joint, Etc.)‐ Green Room0.35 3,740 SF 1,309$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 3,740 SF 1,309$ SF‐$ SF‐$ (Caulk, Sealants, Safing, Exp. Joint, Etc.)‐Cold Storage0.35 1,838 SF 643$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,838 SF 643$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 08 OpeningsTotals from Division below330,724$ 215,464$ 19,300$ 66,825$ 29,134$ ‐$ ‐$ 08 10 Doors & Frames‐$ Exterior Doors‐$ OH Door ‐ Motorized‐$ 24 X 18 14,000.00 1EA14,000$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA14,000$ EA‐$ 10 x 14 7,192.00 2EA14,384$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 2EA14,384$ EA‐$ 8 x 9 2,200.00 5EA11,000$ 4EA8,800$ EA‐$ 1EA2,200$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Galv Steel Door & HM Frame‐$ 6‐0 x 7‐0 ‐ Insulated 1,400.00 1 PR 1,400$ 1 PR 1,400$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ 3‐0 x 7‐0 ‐ Insulated 750.00 2EA1,500$ 1EA750$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA750$ EA‐$ ‐$ Interior Doors‐$ Alum Door & Frame w/ Glazing Included‐$ 6‐8 x 7‐04,600.00 9 PR 39,100$ 5 PR 20,700$ PR‐$ 4 PR 18,400$ PR‐$ PR‐$ HM/Glass Door at Hydro 1,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Steel Door & HM Frame‐$ 3‐0 x 7‐0700.00 3EA2,100$ 3EA2,100$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 6‐0 x 7‐01,300.00 5 PR 6,500$ 4 PR 5,200$ PR‐$ 1 PR 1,300$ PR‐$ PR‐$ 3‐0 x 7‐0 & 2‐0 x 7‐01,250.00 0PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ S.C. Wood Door & HM Frame‐$ 3‐0 x 7‐0‐Green Room 650.00 6EA3,900$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 6EA3,900$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 3‐0 x 7‐0‐Mtg/Ballroom 650.00 7EA4,550$ 1EA650$ 6EA3,900$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 6‐0 x 7‐0‐Mtg/Ballroom 1,200.00 27 PR 32,400$ 22 PR 26,400$ 5 PR 6,000$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ Team Store Doors at Concourse‐$ 6‐8 x 7‐06,200.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ 08 40 Entrances & Curtain Walls‐$ Exterior Alum/Glass Doors‐$ 3‐0 x 8‐02,300.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 6‐0 x 8‐04,600.00 10 PR 46,000$ 6 PR 27,600$ PR‐$ 4 PR 18,400$ PR‐$ PR‐$ Alum Framed Storefront Glazing‐$ at Interior Atrium 51.00 322 SF 16,422$ 322 SF 16,422$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Interior Atrium ‐ Segmented 51.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Interior ‐ Team Store Doors65.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 08 50 Windows‐$ Alum Storefront System‐$ Exterior Glazing at ‐Gn Rm 51.00 1,102 SF 56,202$ 950 SF 48,450$ SF‐$ 152 SF 7,752$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 08 70 Hardware‐$ Power Operators at Ext Drs2,800.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Exterior Door Hardware ‐ Per Leaf650.00 26 EA16,900$ 12 EA7,800$ 6EA3,900$ 8EA5,200$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Interior Door Hardware ‐ Per Leaf550.00 50 EA27,500$ 32 EA17,600$ 10 EA5,500$ 8EA4,400$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Builders Hardware Allowance1.41 26,146 EA36,866$ 22,406 EA31,592$ EA‐$ 3,740 EA5,273$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 08 80 Glazing‐$ 48" High Protective Glas at Seating 45.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Glass Half Wall at 2nd Floor45.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 09 FinishesTotals from Division below612,369$ 345,523$ 233,993$ 32,853$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 09 20 Plaster & Gypsum‐$ GWB Walls w/ Mtl Studs 6.50 22,186 SF 144,209$ 18,994SF 123,461$ 3,192 SF 20,748$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Temp Walls ‐ Painted 5.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 09 30 Tiling‐$ ‐$ Restroom #1‐Female 10.00 770 SF 7,700$ SF‐$ 770 SF 7,700$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 110 SF 1,008$ SF‐$ 110 LF 1,008$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Ceramic Tile Wall Finish ‐7' AFF (4‐1/4" tile)
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 5 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityRestroom #1‐Male 10.00 504 SF 5,040$ SF‐$ 504 SF 5,040$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 72 SF 660$ SF‐$ 72 LF 660$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Female 10.00 462 SF 4,620$ SF‐$ 462 SF 4,620$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 66 SF 605$ SF‐$ 66 LF 605$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Male 10.00 434 SF 4,340$ SF‐$ 434 SF 4,340$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 62 SF 568$ SF‐$ 62 LF 568$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom Mtg/Ball‐Female 10.00 602 SF 6,020$ 602 SF 6,020$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 86 SF 788$ 86 SF 788$ LF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom Mtg/Ball‐Male 10.00 602 SF 6,020$ 602 SF 6,020$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 86 SF 788$ 86 SF 788$ LF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Restroom #1‐Female 11.76 535 SF 6,292$ SF‐$ 535 SF 6,292$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Male 11.76 258 SF 3,034$ SF‐$ 258 SF 3,034$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Female 11.76 232 SF 2,728$ SF‐$ 232 SF 2,728$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Male 11.76 211 SF 2,481$ SF‐$ 211 SF 2,481$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom Mtg/Ball‐Female 11.76 382 SF 4,492$ 382 SF 4,492$ 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom Mtg/Ball‐Male 11.76 382 SF 4,492$ 382 SF 4,492$ 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Ceramic/Quarry Tile w/o Graphics or Urethane w/Graphics‐$ at Lobby /Atrium 12.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Lobby #1 11.76 6,211 SF 73,041$ SF‐$ 6,211 SF 73,041$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 374 SF 3,426$ SF‐$ 374 LF 3,426$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Lobby #2 11.76 2,810 SF 33,046$ SF‐$ 2,810 SF 33,046$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 176 SF 1,612$ SF‐$ 176 LF 1,612$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Vesibutle‐Mtg/Ball 11.76 240 SF 2,822$ 240 SF 2,822$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Base 9.16 0SF‐$ 0SF‐$ LF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Quarry Tile0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Ceramic/Quarry Floor Tile‐$ Kitchen Area 10.00 1,120 SF 11,200$ 1,120 SF 11,200$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 09 50 Ceilings‐$ GWB Ceiling ‐ Painted 6.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ACT‐Green Room 2.80 3,740 SF 10,472$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 3,740 SF 10,472$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 60% ACT ‐ 40% GWB Ceilings4.08 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 75% ACT ‐ 25% GWB Ceilings3.60 29,006 SF 104,422$ 22,406 SF 80,662$ 6,600 SF 23,760$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 75% Painted Exposed Ceil Struct ‐ 25% Gyp Bd Soffits2.36 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 09 60 Flooring‐$ Carpet‐Prefunction 30.00 384 SY 11,507$ SY‐$ 384 SY 11,507$ SY‐$ SY‐$ SY‐$ Carpet‐Green Room 30.00 416 SY 12,480$ SY‐$ SY‐$ 416 SY 12,480$ SY‐$ SY‐$ Carpet‐Meeting/Ballroom 30.00 2,500 SY 75,000$ 2,500 SY 75,000$ SY‐$ SY‐$ SY‐$ SY‐$ Carpet‐Meeting/Ballroom 30.00 734 SY 22,020$ SY‐$ 734 SY 22,020$ SY‐$ SY‐$ SY‐$ Rubber Tile at Weight & Exercise 16.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Concrete Sealer‐$ at Floors‐ Cold Storage0.50 1,838 SF 919$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,838 SF 919$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Floors‐Mtg/Ball Storage 0.50 1,670 SF 835$ 1,670 SF 835$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Stairs & Landings 0.75 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Ballroom Acoustical (Outside of Remodel SF)‐$ 2" Insulshield 3.00 2,208 SF 6,624$ 2,208 SF 6,624$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 09 90 Painting & Coatings‐$ Paint Exterior Walls 0.80 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Paint CMU ‐ Interior Walls (Grn Rm) 0.80 8,792 SF 7,034$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 8,792 SF 7,034$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Paint CMU ‐ Cold Storage 0.80 2,436 SF 1,949$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,436 SF 1,949$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Paint GB Walls ‐ Interior Walls 0.70 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Female 0.70 330 SF 231$ SF‐$ 330 SF 231$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #1‐Male 0.70 216 SF 151$ SF‐$ 216 SF 151$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Female 0.70 198 SF 139$ SF‐$ 198 SF 139$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Restroom #2‐Male 0.70 186 SF 130$ SF‐$ 186 SF 130$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Paint‐Interior Mtg/Ball Budget 0.80 34,282 SF 27,426$ 27,898 SF 22,318$ 6,384 SF 5,107$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Division 10 ‐ SpecialtiesTotals from Division below169,393$ 152,061$ 17,331$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 10 10 Information Specialties‐$ Signage ‐ Interior 25,000.00 1 LS 25,000$ 1.00 LS 25,000$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ Markerboards at Main Locker Rms 450.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ 10 20 Interior Specialties‐$ Toilet Partitions 1,000.00 8EA8,000$ 8EA8,000$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Toilet Partitions ‐ ADA ‐ Phenolic1,200.00 2EA2,400$ 2EA2,400$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Urinal Screens ‐ Phenolic 710.00 5EA3,550$ 5EA3,550$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Ceramic Porcelian/Quarry Floor Tile at Restrooms
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 6 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityToilet Paper Dispenser ‐ Dbl Roll 125.00 10 EA1,250$ 10 EA1,250$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Grab Bar Sets 275.00 2EA550$ 2EA550$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Sanitary Disposal 80.00 5EA400$ 5EA400$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Soap Dispensers 85.00 5EA425$ 5EA425$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 125.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Accordian Folding Partitions‐$ Divider STC‐47/Large Opening17.40 6,608 SF 114,979$ 5,712 SF 99,389$ 896 SF 15,590$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Installation 27.20 472 LF 12,838$ 408 LF 11,098$ 64 LF 1,741$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ Division 11 ‐ EquipmentTotals from Division below230,000$ 230,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 11 13 Loading Dock Equipment‐$ Loading Dock Bumpers 400.00 0PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ PR‐$ Loading Dock Door Seals 45.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ 11 40 Foodservice Equipment‐$ Food Service Equipment ‐ Budget 120,000.00 1 LS 120,000$ 1 LS 120,000$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ Banquet Chairs 85.00 1,000 EA85,000$ 1,000 EA85,000$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ Maintenance Equipment 25,000.00 1 LS 25,000$ 1 LS 25,000$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ ‐$ 11 65 Athletic & Recreational Equipment‐$ Training Room Equipment‐$ By Owner ‐ Per Outline Spec‐ 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ ‐$ Division 12 ‐ FurnishingsTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 12 30 Casework‐$ Solid Surface Lav Counter180.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Base Cab & Counter250.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 12" d Plam Wall Cabinet 130.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Team Store Circular‐$ Counter & Base 400.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Ticketing Counter200.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Curved Tocket Sales‐$ Counter & Cabinets 400.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Reception/Wating Desk 400.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Securtiy Desk‐$ Staight 250.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Curved 350.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Equip Counter200.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 24" d Club Lounge Bar Counter‐$ Staight 350.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Curved 450.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 18" d 3‐Teir Plam Drink Display‐$ 36" h x 30" w 1,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 12" d Curved Display Areas300.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Suite Casework‐$ Base Cabinet ‐ 24" D 200.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Wall Cabinet ‐ 18" D 145.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Counter Top ‐ Plam 50.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 18" D Counter at Seating ‐$ w/ Tube Steel Supports 122.50 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ 12 40 Furnishing & Accessories‐$ Recessed Floor Mat ‐ 10' Wide 25.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 12 60 Multiple Seating‐$ Suite & Club Seating‐$ 21" Upholstered 350.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Bench Seats at East Rink 110.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ 12 90 Other Furnishings‐$ Full Size Refridgerator at Suites1,200.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Undercounter Refrig at Suites 600.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Darkening Curtains at 2nd Level 20.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ Division 13 ‐ Special ConstructionTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 7 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantity‐$ 13 10 Special Facility Components‐$ Dry Sauna Rooms 10,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ NHL Rink Refridgeration Change 60,000.00 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ ‐$ Division 14 ‐ Conveying EquipmentTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Division 21 ‐ Fire SupressionTotals from Division below170,364$ 104,412$ 26,638$ 10,694$ 28,620$ ‐$ ‐$ 21 10 Water‐Based Fire Supression Systems‐$ Wet Pipe Sprinkler System‐$ at Additions Green Room 2.27 2,791 SF 6,336$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,791 SF 6,336$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Additions Cold Storage 2.27 1,920 SF 4,358$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,920 SF 4,358$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ at Remodel Areas Prefunction 2.65 3,452 SF 9,148$ SF‐$ 3,452 SF 9,148$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ at Remodel Areas Meeting 2.65 17,400 SF 46,110$ SF‐$ 6,600 SF 17,490$ SF‐$ 10,800 SF 28,620$ 0SF‐$ New/Addition Meeting/Ballroom 4.66 22,406 SF 104,412$ 22,406 SF 104,412$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Division 22 ‐ PlumbingTotals from Division below13,915$ ‐$ ‐$ 13,915$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22 10 Plumbing Piping & Pumps‐$ Green Room Plumb Budget 8,037.00 1EA8,037$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA8,037$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Plumbing Piping‐$ Insulation & Accessories/Fixture 1,700.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Concession Stand Plumbing‐$ Ph 1 Addition ‐ Up Grades1,500.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Ph 2 Addition ‐ New Construction 4,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ Test, Sanitize & Identification 0.25 2,791 SF 698$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,791 SF 698$ SF‐$ SF‐$ ‐$ 22 13 Facility Sanitary Sewerage‐$ Elevator Sump Pump & Basin 2,500.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Floor Drains w/ Trp & Trim‐$ at Toilet Areas 255.00 1EA255$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA255$ EA‐$ EA‐$ at Showers 485.00 1EA485$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA485$ EA‐$ EA‐$ at Mechanical Areas 580.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ at Laundry Areas 580.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ at Concessions 485.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Item without subitems 125.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22 14 Facility Storm Drainage‐$ Roof Drains 400.00 4EA1,600$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 4EA1,600$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Overflow Drains475.00 4EA1,900$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 4EA1,900$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Storm Water Piping‐$ Above Grade w/ Insulation 43.00 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Below Grade 11.55 0LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Modify Exisiting Storm Water System‐$ To Connect to New Underground‐$ Detention System ‐ Allow15,000.00 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22 30 Plumbing Equipment‐$ Domestic Water Meter 4,500.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Backflow Preventer, RPZ 7,500.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Domestic Water Heaters, Gas Fired‐$ 341 MBH at Laundry 15,200.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 399 MBH at Bldg 16,300.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Expansion Tank250.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Thermostatic Mixing Valves‐$ Bldg Mixing Valve w/Cabinet 6,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Photomaster Assembly2,000.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 22 40 Plumbing Fixtures‐$ Waterclosets, Wall Hung w/ Standard ‐$ Flush Valve‐$ Standard 520.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ A.D.A. Compliant565.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Wall Carriers965.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Waterclosets, (2) Pc. Tank Type‐$ A.D.A. Compliant, Flr Mt'd 425.00 1EA425$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA425$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Urinals w/ Auto Flush & Carrier970.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$
DRAFT ‐ SD Cost Estimate11/5/2009Page 8 of 8Description Unit Price TOTAL AMOUNT Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total Amount Total AmountSITE DevelopmentQuantityQuantity QuantityQUANTITY QuantityPART 1 (NEW) PART 1 (RENOVATION) PART 2 (Green & Cold Stor.) PART 2 (Marshalling Area)TOTALQuantityLavatory's w/ Standard Faucet‐$ Countertop 565.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Wall Hung 515.00 1EA515$ EA‐$ EA‐$ 1EA515$ EA‐$ EA‐$ Wall Carriers485.00 0EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ EA‐$ ‐$ Division 23 ‐ HVACTotals from Division below883,956$ 806,616$ ‐$ 77,340$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 23 HVAC‐$ Budget at Green Room Add 20.71 2,791 SF 57,802$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,791 SF 57,802$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Budget‐Warehouse (Cold Stor.)10.63 1,838 SF 19,538$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,838 SF 19,538$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Budget‐Meeting/Ballroom 36.00 22,406 SF 806,616$ 22,406 SF 806,616$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Budget Plumbing/HVAC Combine‐$ Division 26 ‐ ElectricalTotals from Division below627,020$ 400,902$ 112,200$ 56,918$ 27,000$ 30,000$ ‐$ Electrical SD Estimate Budgets‐ 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Electrical‐ Green Room 15.00 2,791 SF 41,865$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 2,791 SF 41,865$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Electrical‐ Cold Storage 8.19 1,838 SF 15,053$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 1,838 SF 15,053$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Electrical‐ Meeting/Ballroom 17.00 29,006 SF 493,102$ 22,406 SF 380,902$ 6,600 SF 112,200$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ Communications ‐ allowance for expanding paging system20,000.00 1 ls 20,000$ 1 ls 20,000$ ls‐$ ls‐$ ls‐$ ls‐$ 26 50 Lighting‐$ Receiving/Storage 2.50 10,800 SF 27,000$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 10,800 SF 27,000$ 0SF‐$ Exterior Lighting 30,000.00 1 LS 30,000$ 0LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ LS‐$ 1 LS 30,000$ ‐$ Division 27 ‐ CommunicationsTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ included in div 26‐$ Division 28 Electronic Safety & SecurityTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ included in div 26‐$ Division 31 ‐ EarthworkTotals from Division below228,485$ 26,123$ ‐$ 4,437$ 2,122$ 195,803$ ‐$ 31 10 Site Cleaning‐$ Silt Fence 3.00 1,260 LF 3,780$ 1,000 LF 3,000$ LF‐$ 260 LF 780$ 0LF‐$ 0LF‐$ Strip Topsoil & Haul Off Site2.75 1,100 CY3,025$ 996 CY2,739$ CY‐$ 104 CY286$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ ‐$ 31 20 Earth Moving‐$ Shoring at West Elevation 33.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ SF‐$ 0SF‐$ 0SF‐$ Building Pad Earthwork (Green Rm).‐$ Excavate Soils 5.00 2,769 CY13,845$ 2,284 CY11,420$ CY‐$ 192 CY960$ 293 CY1,465$ CY‐$ Compact Exisiting Soils 4.50 2,276 SY 10,242$ 1,992 SY 8,964$ SY‐$ 138 SY 621$ 146 SY 657$ SY‐$ Haul Soil from Site10.00 0CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ Cold Storage Earthwork‐$ Excavate Soils 5.00 151 CY755$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 151 CY755$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ Backfill & Compact Exisiting Soils5.00 207 CY1,035$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 207 CY1,035$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ Haul Soil from Site10.00 0CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ Site Earthwork‐$ Excavate Soils 5.00 6,119 CY30,595$ CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 0CY‐$ 6,119 CY30,595$ Haul Soil from Site10.00 0CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ CY‐$ 0CY‐$ 0CY‐$ Grading Site to New Contours2.00 82,604SY 165,208$ SY‐$ SY‐$ SY‐$ 0SY‐$ 82,604SY 165,208$ ‐$ Division 32 ‐ Exterior ImprovementsTotals from Division below258,813$ ‐$ ‐$ 4,518$ 3,274$ 251,021$ ‐$ 32 10 Bases, Ballasts, & Paving‐$ Concrete Sidewalk4.75 3,316 SF 15,751$ SF‐$ 0SF‐$ 446 SF 2,119$ 0SF‐$ 2,870 SF 13,633$ Concrete Sidewalk/Drive Apron 5.00 0SF‐$ SF‐$ 0SF‐$ SF‐$ 0SF‐$ 0SF‐$ Asphalt Paving 24.80 7,158 SY 177,518$ SY‐$ 0SY‐$ SY‐$ 132 SY 3,274$ 7,026 SY 174,245$ 24" Conc Surmountable Curb16.00 1,980 LF 31,680$ LF‐$ 0LF‐$ LF‐$ 0LF‐$ 1,980 LF 31,680$ ‐$ 32 90 Planting‐$ Sod & Top Soil 6.00 5,644 SY 33,863$ SY‐$ SY‐$ 400 SY 2,399$ 0SY‐$ 5,244 SY 31,464$ Landscaping/Irrigation Allowance‐$ ‐$ Division 33 ‐ UtilitiesTotals from Division below‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ END OF DETAILED ESTIMATE
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
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.
2. Review of second penny sales tax split issues (25/75).
By previous Council action, you wanted to have a policy discussion about the City of
Brookings use of second penny sales and use tax revenue as it pertains to types of
expenditures.
The SD State Statute that regulated how the second penny sales and use tax could be
spent has been repealed. The City of Brookings ordinance for the use of the one
percent 2nd penny sales & use tax mirrors the repealed State Statute. Historically the
second penny has been used for capital expenditures and securing financing for large,
capital projects, land acquisition, and debt retirement.
In addition to exclusive capital use, by policy we have further divided the second penny
designating 25 percent for public safety vehicles and equipment, firefighting vehicles and
equipment, leases, land acquisition, supplement the special E-911 fund and debt
retirement related thereto. Attached is authorizing documentation which describes this
policy.
The purpose for revisiting this policy is to consider whether or not the 25/75 division is
too strict and should it be re-adjusted to some other split amount, re-defined, or
eliminated completely to give us maximum budgetary flexibility to address needs that
change from year to year.
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
29
City of Brookings
Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability
Establishing what is to be done, for whom, at what cost, and
Executive Limitations to define unacceptable means
Financial Stability – Key Performance Area
Financial stability is considered a key performance area by the Brookings City Council, and
appears in the Mission Statement as “fiscally responsible municipal management.”
One of the duties of the City Manager is the development of a process that keeps the Council
aware of upcoming budgetary needs and requests, so that the Council may aid in the creation
of ongoing budget priorities. Good stewardship requires the Council to discern what is in the
best interests of the citizens, and budget accordingly.
Therefore, budgeting for any fiscal period or the remaining part of any fiscal period shall not
deviate materially from Council Policies as established in key performance areas, or other City
Council policies. The City Manager is therefore prohibited from budgeting or spending that:
1. Lowers the City’s bond rating;
2. Violates Federal, State, or Municipal laws; ethical standards; and generally accepted
accounting and budgeting principles.
In addition, the City Manager may not bypass Council judgment to allow budgeting that:
1. Allows expenditures to exceed revenues, including the contingency as an expenditure;
2. Increases the property tax rate;
3. Includes capital expenditures that have not been previously approved by the Council; in
a Capital Improvement Plan or other council action;
4. Causes the City to incur new debt;
5. Increases operating expenses (meaning personnel and capital excluded) in any
department beyond inflation using at least a rolling six month average of the Midwest
Consumer Price Index;
6. Provides for employee compensation and benefits that exceed market standards;
Guideline A:
With respect to budget preparations, the City Manager shall stay within the confines of what
constitutes a conservative perspective, as it is the Council’s intention to:
1. Make conservative revenue projections using the previous five-year average as a
benchmark, with an emphasis on the previous year actual and current year actual.
Projections using current data should not be made with less than 6 months rolling actual
data.
2. Provide valuable citizen services;
3. Lighten the debt load of the City;
4. If a property tax rate is justified only because of state limitations, a special reserve will
be created.
5. The City has established the policy that financial, service and program performance
measures be developed and used as an important component of decision making and
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
30
incorporated into governmental budgeting. The City encourages all departments to
utilize performance measures. At a minimum, performance measures should be used to
report on the outputs of each program and should be related to the objectives of each
department. Performance measures should:
a. Be based on program objectives that tie to the City Council’s goals and
program mission or purpose;
b. Measure program results or accomplishments;
c. Provide for comparisons over time;
d. Measure efficiency and effectiveness;
e. Be reliable, verifiable and understandable;
f. Be reported internally and externally;
g. Be monitored and used in decision-making processes; and
h. Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can provide an
efficient and meaningful way to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of
key programs.
Guideline B:
In addition, as the City Manager assumes his duties, the Council requests that the City Manager
keep information flowing to the Council, especially concerning plans relating to consolidation or
expansion of any City departments. Therefore, the City Manager may not consolidate or
expand any City Department without first informing the Council of the intended action.
Guideline C:
With respect to reserve funds the City Manager’s overall budgetary goal will be to present a
budget that allows for reasonable reserve creating options for the Council. The City Manager
may not bypass Council judgment to allow budgeting that:
1. Lowers the General Fund Reserve below a 3-month operational level:
a. The 3-month calculation shall be based upon General Fund expenditures, derived from
the previous year’s Audited Financial Statement. The reserve amount shall reflect the
targeted reserve amount, deficiencies below the targeted reserve amount and any
discretionary funds available above the targeted reserve amount.
b. General Fund reserves may be used at the Council’s discretion to address temporary
cash-flow shortages, emergencies unanticipated economic downturns, one-time
opportunities and capital needs related to buildings, structures and vehicles used
specifically in the operation of the General Fund. They provide flexibility to respond to
unexpected opportunities that may help the City achieve its goals.
The funds identified in “b” above may be used at the Council’s discretion to address
temporary cash flow shortages, emergencies, unanticipated economic downturns, and one-
time opportunities. They provide flexibility to respond to unexpected opportunities that
may help the City achieve its goals.
2. Lowers the following funds below the following:
a. The Industrial Development fund – a cash flow reserve of 10% and a capital reserve of
90% funded with revenue from the sale of industrial lands with a minimum of $500,000
in capital reserve.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
31
b. The Special Assessment fund – a reserve based on an annual analysis of current
development and future needs.
c. The Storm Drainage fund - a cash flow reserve of 20% of annual revenues and a capital
reserve based on the capital improvement plan with a minimum of 80% of annual
revenues from the previous year.
Council options for further reserves include:
a. Transfer to increase the reserve of another fund that is not at the established
target;
b. To finance un-funded necessities of the previous year’s budget reductions;
c. To pay off debt with a portion of the reserve;
d. To finance the expansion of City services;
e. To offer property tax, or other tax relief.
Guideline D:
The use of one-time revenues will be guided by this policy. Examples of one-time revenues
include: infrequent sales of assets, bond refunding savings, infrequent revenues from
development, and grants. These revenues may be available for more than one year (a three-year
grant), but are expected to be non-recurring. Examples of expenditures for which the City may
wish to use one-time revenues include startup costs, stabilization (to cover expenditures that
temporarily exceed revenues), early debt retirement, and capital purchases.
The City Manager will not bypass Council judgment in making use of one-time revenue. In
utilizing one-time revenue, the City Manager will carefully analyze and minimize the need for
ongoing expenditures.
Guideline E:
Capital expenditures will be planned each year in a five-year capital improvement plan. The
annual budget will provide a separate accounting of capital expenditures in each department.
The city manager should plan major projects with an estimated expenditure and with sources of
funding identified. The general fund expenditures for furniture, equipment, and buildings is
expected to fluctuate, but an average of 10% of the total general fund expenditures is expected,
this includes the amount funded by the 25% 2nd Penny funds.
Guideline F:
Upon the City Council’s adoption of an annual budget and five year capital plan that is
presented in accordance with Guidelines A through E, the City Manager assumes responsibility
for ensuring compliance with the budget as an established City Council Policy. This includes
expenditure control, and program and service delivery within that budget.
Minor deviations are tolerable and encouraged to maintain cost control and deliver quality
services. Examples of minor deviations are variances of purchases and costs between line items
in a budget, changes in programs and services resulting in cost savings or without cost, the use
of grants that do not cause future costs, and the purchases of minor equipment. This list is not
exhaustive.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
32
Major deviations require notification and sometimes-prior approval by the City Council.
Examples of major deviations include the use of the contingency fund, program eliminations or
additions, the use of cash instead of debt when debt was planned, changes in the capital
improvement plan, and change orders in capital projects. This list is not exhaustive.
To facilitate a budget that can respond to changing needs, the City Council will approve a
contingency fund for the City Manager to utilize at his/her discretion. Examples of uses for the
City Manager’s contingency fund include: unbudgeted training opportunities for staff; purchases
of software, hardware, and small equipment that was unbudgeted; one-time expenditures to fill
a major position vacancy; one-time expenditures requested by outside entities; and
emergencies in general. The Manager would be expected to make an effort to avoid utilizing
the contingency.
The City Manager will report compliance or deviations from this Guideline for Financial Stability
on a quarterly basis.
Guideline G:
Budgets for Enterprise Funds will be prepared by the City Manager with a goal of providing
quality services and sustaining a maximum return to the General Fund on a long-term basis. A
return on assets (ROA) will be calculated on an annual basis.
500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,00025% 2nd Penny Cash FlowCapital PurchasesAnnual Revenue & CashCash Balance(FiTkAiii‐500,0000500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0002009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201625% 2nd Penny Cash FlowCapital PurchasesAnnual Revenue & CashCash Balance(Fire Truck AcquisitionScheduled ‐2010,11,13,15)
Second Penny25% Second Penny Projections3% projectedAssuming an annual increase of 3.0%Growth 0.02 InterestYear 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016ExpendituresDebt ServiceLease Payment Golf Carts/Park 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 25,000 25,000 25,000 Lease Payment/Motor Graders 37,419 37,419 37,419 37,419 53,086 Lease Payment/Fire Trucks-Prin 117,858 122,914 128,187 133,686 139,421 145,402 151,640 Lease Payment/Fire Trucks-Int 40,287 35,231 29,958 24,459 18,724 12,743 6,505 Total Annual Debt Service217,864 217,864 217,864 217,864 233,531 183,145 183,145 25,000Cash ProjectsStreet Sealing 192,000 205,000 220,000 235,500 250,000 265,000 280,000 295,000Street Dept-Vehicles/Equip 212,000 323,000 225,500 92,086 375,000 388,125 250,000 E-911 226,843 190,000 210,000 217,350 224,957 232,831 240,980 249,414 Law Enforcement Vehicles/Equip 78,896 85,110 140,100 124,200 80,700 92,000 100,000 120,000 Fire Department Vehicles/Equip 75,000 425,000 585,000 418,000 693,000 500,000 Fire Department Facilities 37,200 41,000 Forestry-Facilities & Parks 271,528 50,000 Edgebrook 57,462 60,513 60,513 60,513 25,000 Total Cash Projects1,093,467 905,110 1,629,613 1,281,063 1,401,256 989,831 1,509,105 914,414Total Annual Expenditures 1,311,331 1,122,974 1,847,477 1,498,927 1,634,787 1,172,976 1,692,250 939,414RevenuesPayments for late delivery 15,180 Interest Income10,000 10,750 11,556 12,423 13,355 14,356 15,433 16,590 25% Sales Tax Revenue 1,193,750 1,200,000 1,236,000 1,273,080 1,311,272 1,350,611 1,391,129 1,432,863 Total Annual Revenues 1,218,930 1,210,750 1,247,556 1,285,503 1,324,627 1,364,967 1,406,562 1,449,453Annual Net-92,401 87,776 -599,920 -213,424 -310,160 191,991 -285,688 510,039Ending Cash Balance864,331 952,107 352,187 138,763 -171,397 20,594 -265,094 244,945Restricted Cash Balance Cashflow151,916 151,916 151,916 151,916 151,916 151,916 151,916 151,916,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2ndPenny 25% Projects Nov 09.xlsx
$15,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 Axis Title75% Public Improvement‐Present Obligations‐Nov 09Cash BalanceAnnual ExpendituresAnnualRevenue$‐$5,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Annual Revenue
Second Penny Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ExpendituresDebt Service2003 Swiftel/Library Principle 790,000 810,000 840,000 870,000 900,000 2003 Swiftel/Library Interest 143,840 118,560 91,830 62,850 32,400 2001 Ice Arena/PAC Principal**-2021 285,000 300,000 310,000 325,000 340,000 585,000 755,000 790,000 835,000 875,000 920,000 970,000 1,015,000 2001 Ice Arena/PAC* Interest 410,656 398,401 385,201 371,251 356,301 340,321 312,241 275,624 236,519 193,725 148,881 101,731 52,019 2005 Retail/Principal 295,000 305,000 315,000 325,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 2005 Retail/Interest 82,011 71,673 60,718 49,248 37,160 24,400 10,725 2006 Aquatic Pool/Principal 308,000 308,000 308,000 2006 Aquatic Pool/Interest 46,200 30,800 15,400 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 150,000 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 4,050 4,050 4,050 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/Principal 44,134 45,473 46,853 48,274 49,739 51,248 52,803 54,405 56,055 57,756 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/Interest 78,838 35,207 33,868 32,488 31,067 29,602 28,093 26,538 24,937 23,285 21,585 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Total Annual Debt Service2,361,907 2,347,684 2,410,237 2,237,940 2,086,402 1,385,262 1,523,507 1,146,165 1,152,060 1,149,266 1,149,423 1,152,271 1,147,560Cash ProjectsRailroad Switch 15,191 Boys & Girls Club 100,000 100,000 Swiftel CIP 117,623 350,000 483,000 152,000 105,000 103,500 Critical Need-Forestry Aerial Truck 135,000 Bike Trail Improvement Project - 101,000 SDSU Research Park 150,000 150,000 SDSU Wellness Center 500,000 Nature Park 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Larson holding barn concrete floor & turf 125,000 Automation irrigation system/Edgebrook 170,000 Airport Expansion 294,880 500,000 S Main Ave sewer line extension 500,000 Spl Assmnt-Street-15th St S/7th Ave S 870,000 Street Improvements 516,000 420,000 400,000 300,000 150,000Street Development 700,000 500,000 1,650,000 0 2,500,000 SDSU Innovation Campus 694,000 Animal Control/Humane Society Bldg 100,000 100,000 Bob Shelden baseball field upgrade 200,000 Adult baseball fields (2) Southbrook 175,000 Mickelson Middle School baseball lighting 190,000 Railroad Traffic Signals1,350,000 Fire Station550,000 Aquatic Center/Lazy River2,000,000 City/School Partnership Park-Land200,000 R & T Center-Chip seal parking lot 7,000 Total Cash Projects1,017,814 3,750,880 3,130,000 2,717,000 1,805,000 2,803,500 2,700,000 0 0 0000Total Annual Expenditures 3,379,721 6,098,564 5,540,237 4,954,9403,891,402 4,188,762 4,223,507 1,146,1651,152,060 1,149,266 1,149,423 1,152,271 1,147,560Revenues75% Sales Tax Revenue 3,506,250 3,611,438 3,719,781 3,831,374 3,946,315 4,064,705 4,186,646 4,312,245 4,441,613 4,574,861 4,712,107 4,853,470 4,999,074Donations46,200 36,200 20,800 11/12/2009 Public Improvement Planning Tool Page 1
Second Penny Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Interest82,570 54,525 55,532 56,942 58,325 60,070 61,872 63,728 65,640 67,609 69,637 71,726 73,878Total Annual Revenues 3,635,020 3,702,163 3,796,113 3,888,316 4,004,640 4,124,774 4,248,517 4,375,973 4,507,252 4,642,470 4,781,744 4,925,196 5,072,952Annual Net255,299 -2,396,401 -1,744,123 -1,066,624 113,238 -63,988 25,010 3,229,808 3,355,192 3,493,2043,632,321 3,772,925 3,925,3920.1Ending Balance5,759,990 3,363,589 1,619,466 552,842 666,080 602,092 627,103 3,856,911 7,212,103 10,705,307 14,337,628 18,110,552 22,035,945Minimum Bal 10% cash flow339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923 339,923Restricted Cash Debt2,174,923 2,174,923 2,174,923 2,174,923 1,401,423 1,401,423 1,401,423 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000Available Cash3,245,144 848,743 -895,380 -1,962,004 -1,075,266 -1,139,254 -1,114,243 2,516,988 5,872,180 9,365,384 12,997,705 16,770,629 20,696,022*Estimated figures11/12/2009 Public Improvement Planning Tool Page 2
05,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00075% Proposed Public Improvement Cash FlowAnnual ExpendituresAnnual RevenuesCash‐10,000,000‐5,000,00005,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,0002008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202175% Proposed Public Improvement Cash FlowAnnual ExpendituresAnnual RevenuesCash(Chart Includes SDSU Request)
Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ExpendituresDebt Service2003 Swiftel/Library Principle 765,000 790,000 810,000 840,000 870,000 900,000 2003 Swiftel/Library Interest 168,320 143,840 118,560 91,830 62,850 32,400 2001 Ice Arena/PAC Principal**-2021 275,000 285,000 300,000 310,000 325,000 340,000 585,000 755,000 790,000 835,000 875,000 920,000 970,000 1,015,000 2001 Ice Arena/PAC* Interest 422,206 410,656 398,401 385,201 371,251 340,321 312,241 275,624 236,519 193,725 148,881 101,731 52,019 2005 Retail/Principal 290,000 295,000 305,000 315,000 325,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 2005 Retail/Interest 91,908 82,011 71,673 60,718 49,248 37,160 24,400 10,725 2006 Aquatic Pool/Principal 308,000 308,000 308,000 308,000 2006 Aquatic Pool/Interest 61,600 46,200 30,800 15,400 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 150,000 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 4,050 4,050 4,050 2009 Innovation Campus SRF Loan/Principal 44,134 45,473 46,853 48,274 49,739 51,248 52,803 54,405 56,055 57,756 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/SRF Interest 78,838 35,207 33,868 32,488 31,067 29,602 28,093 26,538 24,937 23,285 21,585 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/GF Principal 105,213 107,868 110,590 113,381 116,242 119,175 122,183 125,266 128,427 131,668 134,991 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/GF Interest 66,369 63,714 60,992 58,201 55,340 52,406 49,399 46,315 43,154 39,913 36,591 *Swiftel Expansion Principal 209,112 219,810 231,056 242,878 255,304 268,365 282,096 296,528 *Swiftel Expansion Interest 351,058 340,359 329,113 317,293 304,866 291,804 278,074 263,642 *City Hall Principal 133,297 138,727 144,379 150,262 156,384 162,755 169,386 176,287 183,469 *City Hall Interest 160,009 154,578 148,926 143,044 136,922 130,550 123,920 117,019 109,836 *Airport Expansion Principal 1,807,490 1,898,994 1,995,131 2,096,134 2,202,251 *Airport Expansion Interest 477,685 386,181 290,045 189,041 82,924 *SDSU Performing Arts Center Add'n 352,503 370,537 389,495 409,422 430,369 452,387 475,532 499,862 525,435 *SDSU Performing Arts Center Add'n603,710 585,676 566,718 546,791 525,844 503,826 480,681 456,352 430,778 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Total Annual Debt Service2,383,234 2,361,907 2,347,684 2,581,819 2,409,522 3,151,202 5,651,707 5,789,951 5,412,610 5,418,507 5,415,710 3,130,692 3,133,542 3,128,830*Swiftel Center $8.5M/Library $2.8MCash ProjectsRailroad Switch 15,191 Boys & Girls Club 100,000 100,000 100,000 Swiftel CIP 225,000 117,623 350,000 483,000 152,000 105,000 103,500 Critical Need-Forestry Aerial Truck 135,000 Bike Trail Improvement Project - 101,000 SDSU Research Park 150,000 150,000 150,000 SDSU Wellness Center 500,000 Nature Park 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Larson holding barn concrete floor & turf 125,000 Automation irrigation system/Edgebrook 170,000 Airport Expansion 294,880 500,000 S Main Ave sewer line extension 500,000 Spl Assmnt-Street-15th St S/7th Ave S 870,000 Street Improvements 516,000 420,000 400,000 300,000 150,000Public Improvement Planning Tool with SDSU Proposals
Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ExpendituresStreet Development 700,000 500,000 1,650,000 0 2,500,000 SDSU Innovation Campus 694,000 Animal Control/Humane Society Bldg 100,000 100,000 Bob Shelden baseball field upgrade 200,000 Adult baseball fields (2) Southbrook 175,000 Mickelson Middle School baseball lighting 190,000 Railroad Traffic Signals 150,000 1,350,000 Fire Station550,000 City/School Partnership Park-Land 200,000 R & T Center-Chip seal parking lot 7,000 Aquatic Center/Lazy River2,000,000 City/School Partnership Park-Land 200,000 SDSU McCory Gardens1,000,000 SDSU Performing Arts Addition 11,800,000 Total Cash Projects2,114,560 1,017,814 3,750,880 3,130,00015,517,000 1,805,000 2,803,500 2,900,000000000Total Annual Expenditures 4,497,794 3,379,721 6,098,564 5,711,819 17,926,522 4,956,202 8,455,207 8,689,951 5,412,610 5,418,507 5,415,710 3,130,692 3,133,542 3,128,830Revenues75% Sales Tax Revenue 3,773,029 3,506,250 3,611,438 3,719,781 3,831,374 3,946,315 4,064,705 4,186,646 4,312,245 4,441,613 4,574,861 4,712,107 4,853,470 4,999,074DtiDonations61,600 46,200 36,200 20,800 Interest131,590 82,570 86,400 51,188 22,634Interfund Loan Repayment17,097 16,413 15,712 14,993 14,256 13,50012,726 11,931 11,117 10,282 9,426 8,549Total Annual Revenues 3,966,219 3,635,020 3,751,134 3,808,182 3,869,720 3,961,308 4,078,961 4,200,146 4,324,971 4,453,544 4,585,978 4,722,389 4,862,896 5,007,623Revenue Bond Proceeds12,800,000*Tax Increment Revenue/TIF 1 FAA Grant Match4,000,000 6,000,000Total Debt Proceeds 0 0 0 0 12,800,000 4,000,000 6,000,0000000000Total Revenues 3,966,219 3,635,020 3,751,134 3,808,182 16,669,720 7,961,308 10,078,961 4,200,146 4,324,971 4,453,544 4,585,978 4,722,389 4,862,896 5,007,623Annual Net-531,575 255,299 -2,347,429 -1,903,636 -1,256,802 3,005,106 1,623,753 -4,489,805 -1,087,639-964,963 -829,732 1,591,697 1,729,354 1,878,7930.1Ending Balance5,504,691 5,759,990 3,412,561 1,508,925 252,1233,257,229 4,880,983 391,177 -696,461 -1,661,424 -2,491,156 -899,460 829,894 2,708,687Minimum Bal 10% cash flow339,923 0 0 0 0000000000Restricted Cash Debt2,192,673 2,174,923 2,174,923 2,174,923 3,454,923 3,454,923 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573Available Cash2,972,095 3,585,067 1,237,638 -665,998 -3,202,800-197,694 2,203,410 -2,286,396 -3,374,034 -4,338,997 -5,168,729 -3,577,033 -1,847,679 31,114*Estimated figuresPublic Improvement Planning Tool with SDSU Proposals
$
DEBT WORKSHEET 2009
Brookings Debt Limit 42,750,224.00$
Debt Outstanding
Description of Bonds Outstanding Principal Outstanding Interest Total Outstanding
-$ -$
Sales Tax Bonds -$ -$ 15,134,504.00$
2001 Sales Tax 8,305,000.00$ 205,328.00$ 8,510,328.00$
2003 Sales Tax 4,210,000.00$ 71,920.00$ 4,281,920.00$
2005 Sales Tax 2,300,000.00$ 42,256.00$ 2,342,256.00$
-$ -$ -$
Storm Drainage -$ 2,000,000.00$
SRF Loan (Total proposed $8M)2,000,000.00$ -$ 2,000,000.00$
-$ -$ -$
Tax Incremental Bonds -$ -$ 5,359,000.00$
TIF #3/Valley View Add'n 1,035,000.00$ -$ 1,035,000.00$
TIF #4/Sieler Add'n 440,000.00$ -$ 440,000.00$
TIF#1/SDSU Innovation Campus 3,884,000.00$ -$ 3,884,000.00$
Other Indebtedness -$ 766,000.00$
Acquatic Center 616,000.00$ -$ 616,000.00$
Larson Ice Center 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
TOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEBTTOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT 23 259 504 00$23,259,504.00
Remaining Debt Limit 19,490,720.00$
Proposed Bond Issue 41,800,000.00$
Storm Drainage 6,000,000.00$
Airport 12,000,000.00$
City Hall 5,000,000.00$
Swiftel Center Expansion 7,000,000.00$
SDSU Performing Arts Expansion/McCory Gardens 11,800,000.00$
Over Debt Limit ($22,309,280.00)
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
42
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. Review of City Subsidy application policy and process.
This item is on the agenda pursuant to council request. Enclosed are the current City
Subsidy Application and Revised Council Policy.
Estimated Time: 15 minutes
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
43
City of Brookings
Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability
Establishing what is to be done, for whom, at what cost, and
Executive Limitations to define unacceptable means
Financial Stability – Key Performance Area
Guideline H: Appropriation and Subsidy Policy & Guidelines
Purpose.
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and criteria regarding the allocation and use
of municipal subsidies within the City of Brookings. These guidelines shall be used in processing
and reviewing applications requesting municipal subsidy assistance. Protecting the financial
interest is of the City of Brookings is of the utmost importance, so it is the intent of the city to
provide a minimum amount of municipal subsidies, as well as other incentives that the City may
deem appropriate, for the shortest term required for the project to proceed.
The City reserves the right to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account established policies, specific project criteria, and demand on city services in relation to
the potential benefits to be received from a proposed project.
Meeting policy guidelines or other criteria does not guarantee the award of municipal subsidies.
Furthermore, the approval or denial of one project is not intended to set precedent for
approval or denial of another project.
Whenever possible, it is the City’s intent to coordinate the use of municipal services with other
local governing bodies and taxing jurisdictions.
Objective of Municipal Subsidies.
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.
To fulfill this commitment, the Brookings City Council will closely examine its goals and the
goals of its city departments to identify outcomes that will meet the standards as outlined in the
mission statement above.
The Council also recognizes that its support of programs and services outside the scope of its
city departments may be necessary to fulfill the commitment and achieve the desirable quality of
life for its citizens. As a matter of policy, the City of Brookings will consider using municipal
funds to assist in the following areas, but are not limited to, opportunities in the areas of:
Affordable Housing
Arts & Culture
Child Care & After School Programs
Diversity
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
44
Economic Development
Education & Literacy
Environment
Government Stewardship
Health
Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces
Partnerships
Preservation/ History
Safety
Transportation/Transit
The Brookings City Council may choose to annually allocate a specified funding amount for a
specific category, regardless of the number of applicants for that particular programming area.
General Guidelines for the Allocation of Municipal Subsidies
The City of Brookings may allocate up to four (4) percent of the annual General Fund
expenditures to subsidize community needs and programs. The City’s current and projected
financial health and stability will be the key deciding factor in determining its ability to provide
funds to outside organizations.
In addition, the Council will consider a number of factors as defined in the City’s Funding
Application when making this decision. A key factor will be the applicant’s ability to provide a
service or outcome that improves the quality of life for the citizens of Brookings. The applicant
must also provide a “but for” analysis which demonstrates the need for public assistance.
Other factors include the applicant’s ability to become self-sustaining, the duration of the
funding commitment, and operating verses capital requests.
Municipal subsidy will not be used for projects that would place extraordinary demands on city
infrastructure and services.
Request for donations or subsidies from individuals, religious or political groups based out of
the City of Brookings will not be considered.
Request for donations or subsidies from qualified organizations outside of the funding timeline
will not be considered.
General Guidelines for Subsidies
The Brookings City Council evaluates program-funding proposals on an annual basis for funding
in the following calendar year. The City’s fiscal year is January 1 to December 31. Proposals
must be submitted to the City Clerk in accordance with the budget cycle schedule and proposal
format outlined below. Requests may only be made during this period of time. Completed
applications must be received on or before June 1st of each given year.
Following, a review by the City Manager and Finance Manager, the application shall be referred
to the City Council for further consideration during the annual budget meetings.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
45
Organizations applying for a donation or subsidy must submit a completed Application for
Funding along with a detailed description of the project; a preliminary site plan; the amount
requested; the duration of the funding request; the public purpose of the project; verifiable
funding sources and uses; and a “but for” analysis which demonstrates the need for public
assistance. Additional documents that may be required include the organization’s current
expense statement and budget, Board of Directors listing, current Annual Report, and all other
items specified in the City of Brookings Application for Funding.
Budget Hearing Process.
Brookings City Council budget meetings are held in the months of August and September. All
budget meetings are open to the public. Applicants may or may not be invited to make a
presentation on their funding proposal. Applicants are encouraged to attend all budget
meetings to remain informed during the process. Applicants should be prepared to answer
questions based on the application. Final action on the budget occurs at the last Council
meeting in September.
Brookings School District Subsidies
Appropriation of public funds can be set aside for specific purposes which promote the City of
Brookings mission and the local quality of life within the City of Brookings. Brookings Municipal
Utilities transfers funds each year to the General Fund as a means to keep city property taxes
at a low level for the citizens of Brookings. The City of Brookings may annually appropriate up
to 15% of the transfer from the Brookings Municipal Utilities to the Brookings School District.
Economic Development/Promotions Subsidies
A subsidy from the 3rd B Fund shall meet the requirements of the SD State Statute 10-52-8*.
Funds will be appropriated from the 3rd B Fund to entities with the capacity to promote and
advertise the city, its facilities, attractions, and activities. In any fiscal year, the City may require
the unencumbered funds be returned to the City 3rd B Fund.
Subsidy Agreement and Reporting Requirements
The City of Brookings requires all recipients of municipal funds to enter into appropriate
agreements that identify the reason for the subsidy, the public purpose served by the subsidy,
subsidy payment schedule, final the specific performance measurements to be attained, and final
reporting on outcomes. Failure to provide final reporting of funds and all other required
reports will make applicant ineligible for future subsidies.
The City has established the policy that financial, service and program performance measures
be developed and used as an important component of decision making and incorporated into
governmental budgeting. The City encourages all departments to utilize performance
measures. At a minimum, performance measures should be used to report on the outputs of
each program and should be related to the objectives of each department.
The performance measurements should:
1. Be based on program objectives that tie to the City Council’s goals and program mission or
purpose;
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
46
2. Measure program results or accomplishments;
3. Provide for comparisons over time;
4. Measure efficiency and effectiveness;
5. Be reliable, verifiable and understandable;
6. Be reported internally and externally;
7. Be monitored and used in decision-making processes; and
8. Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can provide an efficient and
meaningful way to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key programs.
All agreements and reports shall be timely prepared and filed with the City Clerk. Failure to
comply with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the requested subsidy as
well as fines, repayment requirements, and a determination that the organization is ineligible for
future municipal subsidies for a period of years.
* Applicable State Statute:
10-52-8. Additional tax on lodgings, alcoholic beverages, prepared food, and admissions -- Purposes -- Conformance with state sales and use
tax. Notwithstanding the tax rate limitations of §10-52-2 or 10-52-2.1, any municipality may impose an additional municipal non-ad valorem tax
at the rate of one percent upon the gross receipts of all leases or rentals of hotel, motel, campsites, or other lodging accommodations within
the municipality for periods of less than twenty-eight consecutive days, or sales of alcoholic beverages as defined in §35-1-1, or establishments
where the public is invited to eat, dine, or purchase and carry out prepared food for immediate consumption, or ticket sales or admissions to
places of amusement, athletic, and cultural events, or any combination thereof. The tax shall be levied for the purpose of land acquisition,
architectural fees, construction costs, payments for civic center, auditorium, or athletic facility buildings, including the maintenance, staffing, and
operations of such facilities and the promotion and advertising of the city, its facilities, attractions, and activities. Such taxes shall conform in all
respects to the state sales and use tax on such items with the exception of the rate.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
47
City of Brookings, South Dakota
APPLICATION FOR CITY FUNDS
DURING ANNUAL BUDGET CYCLE
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.
Application Process:
The Brookings City Council evaluates program-funding proposals on an annual basis for funding
in the following calendar year. The City’s fiscal year is January 1 to December 31. Proposals
must be submitted in accordance with the budget cycle schedule and proposal format outlined
below. Please note that requests may only be made during this period of time. Completed
applications must be received on or before June 15, 2009.
City Budget Cycle Schedule:
June 15, 2009 Deadline to submit completed funding proposal to City
(early submission is encouraged)
June Preliminary meetings with City Manager upon invitation
August Council review of budget
September Council adoption of budget
October Notification of funding
Proposal Requirements:
1. Completed funding application.
2. Cover letter signed by the senior administrative official that briefly describes the project
and funding request.
3. Narrative statement of program.
4. Most recent audit.
5. Most recent budget.
6. List of current board members of Board of Directors.
Submission Instructions:
Please read the application form carefully and refer to the Proposal Requirements for clarification.
All information should be entered in the space provided or “not applicable” inserted.
Incomplete applications will not be considered.
o All proposals must be typed.
o Submit four (4) full sets of the completed application packet. Application packets should be
assembled with a manila folder or clip; do not use plastic covers or binders. Do not
send program videotapes or architectural renderings. Materials submitted will not be
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
48
returned. Mail or deliver completed application packets to Shari Thornes, Brookings City
Clerk, 311 Third Avenue, City Hall, Brookings, SD 57006 (Box 270).
o A full electronic set is also required. Email the application packet in its entirety to
sthornes@cityofbrookings.org.
o Deadline: June 15, 2009
Appearance Before City Council
If the applicant is invited to the City Council meeting, no presentation is desired. The applicant
should be prepared, however, to answer questions based on the application. All proposed
handouts must be provided to the City Clerk in advance for approval and distribution. Direct
distribution of materials to the City Council members is not permitted.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
49
City of Brookings, South Dakota
APPLICATION FOR CITY FUNDS
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.
Applicant Information:
1. Name of applicant:
address
telephone
fax
email address
2. Contact (individual responsible for the project):
name
title
address (if different)
telephone
fax
email address
3. Applicant is:
nonprofit organization
government agency
for-profit business
an individual
other
4. Type of Funds Requested:
City General Fund Subsidy
City Second Penny Funds (see criteria and qualifications below)
CITY ORDINANCE ON SECOND PENNY FUNDS:
Any revenues received pursuant to sections 78-32 and 78-33 in excess of the amount
received if the rate of tax in section 78-32(a) is one percent may be used only in the
following manner:
1) Seventy-five percent of such revenues may be used only for General Fund Critical
Needs Equipment and for capital improvements which involve the construction and
financing of public improvements designated by ordinance or resolution of the City
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
50
Council following a public hearing. The term “construction and financing,” as used in
this section, shall include land acquisition, architectural and engineering fees,
construction costs and debt retirement. The term “public improvements,” as used
in this section, shall include improvements owned by the city, joint county-municipal
improvements, joint school district-municipal improvements as authorized by SDCL
ch. 6-3 (SDCL 6-3-1 et seq.), and improvements constructed pursuant to a joint
powers agreement with the state and South Dakota State University as authorized
by SDCL ch. 1-24 (SDCL 1-24-1 et seq.). Any improvement project authorized by
the City Council under this subsection (a) shall be subject to referendum.
2) Twenty-five percent of such revenues may be used only for capital improvements,
including lease purchase agreements of realty, land acquisition, the funding of public
ambulance and medical emergency response vehicles, public hospitals, or nonprofit
hospitals with 50 or fewer licensed beds, and other public health care facilities or
nonprofit health care facilities with 50 or fewer licensed beds, the transfer to the
special 911 fund authorized by SDCL 34-45-12, the purchasing of firefighting vehicles
and equipment, public safety vehicles and equipment and debt retirement.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
51
Brief History of Organization/Applicant:
If the applicant is a nonprofit organization, please state its mission. For a for-profit business,
state the nature of the business.
Description of services provided and persons served.
Provide a description of the program characteristics which distinguish it from others in
Brookings.
Identify the key issues facing your organization at this time.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
52
Summary Project Description
Provide the name of the project or program and describe in it in 50 words or less.
Location of project or program:
Date(s) of implementation:
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
53
Project Summary:
(Attached narrative not to exceed 5 typed pages in 12 point font and 1 inch margins)
1. State the project and/or program’s purpose, significance, ownership, schedule and
anticipated outcomes.
2. Discuss how the project will help your organization position itself to respond more
effectively to the KEY issues described under the organizational information section on
Page 5.
3. Does this project replace another facility or program? Are there similar programs in
Brookings or serving the City of Brookings?
4. Outline total project costs, funds requested from city, and funds to be provided by
other sources.
5. Provide reliable information and projections indicating direct net impact on future city
operating funds and budgets for five years.
6. Describe efforts for securing funds from other non-city sources. Is your organization
eligible for grants for matching funds?
7. Will the project benefit sales tax revenue in the City and if so, in what way? Is the
impact measurable and, if so, what is the estimated impact on sales tax revenues?
8. What is the economic benefit to the community other than tax revenues?
9. What effect will the completed project have on the organization’s overall budget?
10. List other Brookings agencies or organizations that interact and cooperate with your
organization.
11. Describe and quantify users and/or beneficiaries of the project. How many
families/businesses does this program serve or effect?
12. Describe measurable goals that you intend to accomplish in the next year and two
years.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
54
Certification
Acting as the duly authorized representative for the described project and its sponsoring
organization/agency/business, I certify the information submitted is correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and submit this request for funding to the City of Brookings.
Name Title
Signature Date
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
55
City Council Guidelines for Analyzing Proposals and Requests:
1. Funding Category
_ Affordable Housing
_ Arts & Culture
_ Youth Development
_ Diversity
_ Economic Development
_ Education & Literacy
_ Environment
_ Government Stewardship
_ Health
_ Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces
_ Partnerships
_ Preservation/ History
_ Safety
_ Transportation/Transit
2. Funding Type:
_ Capital
_ Operating
3. The Effect on the Citizens
a. Will services improve?
b. Will members of the public find satisfaction with the program or facility?
c. Does the action contribute to a diverse economy in Brookings?
d. Does the action contribute to a high quality of life in Brookings?
4. Financial Impact
a. Relation to Budget.
b. Relation to Capital Improvement Plan.
c. Relation to Cash Flow.
d. Relation to future Budgets and Plans.
5. Relationship to Ends Policies.
a. Council Goals.
b. Affected Departmental Goals.
6. Staff
a. Is there a management recommendation?
b. Is the request or proposal able to be met and/or implemented?
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
56
7. Others
a. Has it been adequately researched by staff and presenter?
b. Does it require a change in policy?
c. Have those affected been involved?
d. Has the proper committee, if necessary, been involved?
8. Evidence of clearly defined performance measurements.
9. Agreement to comply with all City ADA Policies. Policy is included in application packet.
10. Compliance with the City Governance and Ends Policy #1, Financial Stability regarding
“Appropriation and Subsidy Policy and Guidelines.” Policy is included in application packet.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
57
Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act
and City of Brookings ADA Policies
Required as Condition of Funding
Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against or excluding people
from programs, services, or activities on the basis of disability. The standard against which
programs and services will be measured for the purpose of ADA compliance is one of overall
program accessibility: all City of Brookings programs, services, and activities, when viewed it its
entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
Therefore, the City of Brookings requires all city-owned and/or funded new, remodeled, and
retrofitted facilities comply with the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
guidelines and all City ADA related policies.
The City ADA Compliance Officer will review and approve the project scope, final plans, and
bid package of all new construction, remodels, and retrofits of City owned and/or funded
facilities. The scope and budget development of capital improvement projects will include the
identification of ADA needs related to these projects to ensure compliance and accessibility
standards.
Compliance with these policies is a condition for acceptance of the funding. For more
information regarding these policies and procedures, please contact Shari Thornes, City ADA
Compliance Officer, at 605-697-8641.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
58
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work Sessions are open to the public. During the Work Session the city staff would brief the Council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
4. City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports.
Pursuant to council direction, “City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports” will be a
standing agenda item at all Council Work Sessions. The Council Members that serve as
Ex-Officio members on the Brookings Health System Board and Utility Board will
provide verbal reports regarding recent meetings they have attended.
Utility Board: Council Members Bezdichek and Kubal
Health Systems Board: Council Members Whaley and Thorpe
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
59
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work Sessions are open to the public. During the Work Session the city staff would brief the Council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future
discussion.*
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can
not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue,
requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
60
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work Sessions are open to the public. During the Work Session the city staff would brief the Council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
6. Council Invites & Obligations.
Date
Day
Event &
Brief Description
Time
Location
Nov. 20th
Friday
COB Employee
Recognition Night
6:00 p.m.
Swiftel Center
Nov. 24th
Tuesday
NO COUNCIL
MEETING DUE TO
HOLIDAY
Dec. 1st
Tuesday
Mayor’s Christmas
Party
5:00 p.m.
PAC
Dec. 8th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5 & 6 p.m.
Council Chambers
Dec. 15th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5 & 6 p.m.
Council Chambers
Dec. 22nd
Tuesday
NO COUNCIL
MEETING
DUE TO
HOLIDAYS
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
61
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Record of Council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items:*
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 110-09, updating the EEOC Statement.
D. Action on Resolution No. 111-09, for 2010 Dental Insurance Contribution
Rates.
E. Action on an appointment to the Human Rights Committee.
F. Action on an amendment to the Police Union Contract.
G. Action to approve a Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Valley View
Addition.
H. Action on Resolution No. 112-09, a Resolution fixing time and place for Hearing
Upon Assessment Roll for Street Assessment Project 2008-04STA (East/West
Alley from 6th Street to 7th Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call.
*Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at
one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given
item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the
Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms
and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation.
Presentations, Special Requests/Invites & Reports
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
First Reading**
**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. 30-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the
definition of a Coffeehouse. Public Hearing: December 8, 2009
8. Ordinance No. 31-09: An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment
with 3 units on the west 183 feet of the east 288 feet of the south 140 feet of Block 11,
Parkdale Home Second Addition (208 West 8th Street). Public Hearing: December 8,
2009
Second Readings/Public Hearings
9. Ordinance No. 27-09: Budget Amendment #2, an Ordinance Authorizing a
Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009 Budget for the purpose of providing for
additional funds for the operation of the City.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
62
10. Ordinance No. 28-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to off-street parking requirements for a two-family dwelling for
the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
11. Ordinance No. 29-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business
and industrial districts for the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
12. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No. 115-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease
Real Property to Private Person (Lyle Johnson – Nichols property).
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
13. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No. 116-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease
Real Property (South Dakota Ag Experiment Station – Airport).
City Manager Introduction
Open & Close Public Hearing
Motion to Approve – Roll Call
Other Business
14. TABLED – Resolution No. 106-09, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 4
(CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project,
Rounds Construction.
Motion to remove from Table
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
15. Action on Resolution No. 113-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO#1 Final) for 2009-04STA Alley Assessment Project (from 11th Avenue to 12th
Avenue between 1st Street and 2nd Street), Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
16. Action on Resolution No. 114-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO#2 Final) for 2009-02STA 15th Street South, Camelot Drive, and Christine Avenue
Street Assessment Project, Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
63
17. Action on Resolution No.117-09, Creating Capital Reserves for Governmental Funds.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
18. Action on Resolution No. 118-09, accepting a Gift of Real Property to the City of
Brookings, South Dakota.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
19. Action to approve the Fixed Price Technical Services Agreement; I-29 Corridor Study.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Discussion and possible action on a funding pledge for the proposed McCrory Gardens
Visitors Center.
City Manager Introduction
Motion to Approve
Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Adjourn.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
64
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 Resolution No. 110-09, updating the EEOC Statement.
D. Action on Resolution No. 111-09, for 2010 Dental Insurance
Contribution Rates.
E. Action on an appointment to the Human Rights Committee.
F. Action on an amendment to the Police Union Contract.
G. Action to approve a Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Valley
View Addition.
H. Action on Resolution No. 112-09, a Resolution fixing time and place
for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll for Street Assessment Project
2008-04STA (East/West Alley from 6th Street to 7th Street between
7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
*Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at
one time, without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given
item. Items removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the
Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms
and conditions described in the agenda supporting documentation.
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
65
CONSENT AGENDA #4
B. Action to approve Council Minutes.
The draft October 27th Brookings City Council minutes are enclosed for Council review
and approval.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
66
Brookings City Council
October 27, 2009
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 5:00 p.m., at
City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Tim Reed, Council Members Julie Whaley,
John Kubal, Mike McClemans, Mike Bartley, Jael Thorpe, and Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeff
Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
Update from Senator Johnson’s Office. Matt Astleford, staff member for Senator
Johnson, provided an update on behalf of the Senator on current issues that impact Brookings
and the State of South Dakota.
Availability of additional Liquor Licenses per current census estimates. Pursuant to
the City Council’s request from October 13th, the City Attorney and staff have researched the
possibility of additional liquor licenses based on current census estimates. Enclosed below is a
memorandum of response from the City Attorney which indicates that no additional licenses
would be available.
Steve Britzman, City Attorney, provided a memo stating that he had checked for the July 1,
2008 census number for Brookings on the U.S. Census Bureau website and found the figure
19,865. State law requires if the City uses a “census estimate” it has to reduce the population
for purposes of calculating the authorized number of on-sale licenses to 90% of that figure, or
17,879, which his computations indicate provides for 15 on-sale licenses. State statute requires
City’s use only 90% of the estimate for purposes of calculating the number of licenses available.
The 90% procedure is only applicable if a municipality is using data from census estimates as
opposed to the decennial federal census. Census figures for the City of Brookings are as
follows: 07/01/1999 -17,823; 2000 Census -18,504; 07/01/2001 - 18,857; 07/01/2002 - 19,048;
07/01/2003 - 18,983; 07/01/2004 - 18,982; 07/01/2005 - 18,814; 07/01/2006 - 19,337;
07/01/2007 - 19,567; 07/01/2008 -19,865.
Whaley asked when would be the soonest that the official 2010 census numbers would be
available. Staff responded July or August of 2011.
Neighborhood Request for Parking Ordinance. Property owners Bev and Tom Dobbs,
Ray and Ardy Johnson, Jim and Connie McKnight, and Corliss and Anne Johnson formally
requested the City Council consider passing an ordinance to eliminate parking on residential
streets between the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 a.m. This request comes on the heels of extensive
discussion by the Planning Commission and neighbors regarding off-street parking
requirements, specifically for rental addresses. That issue led to a parking ordinance
recommendation by the Planning Commission. Both on and off-street parking is a multi-
faceted, complicated and controversial issue given the diversity of the neighborhoods.
Beverly Dobbs, 131 Jefferson Avenue, clarified that their request was not for a year-round ban,
only during snow season for safety reasons. However, the group also feels that rentals aren’t
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
67
required to provide enough off-street parking spaces and they’d like to see a complete review
of the city’s parking regulations.
The City Council discussed the existence of duplexes in these neighborhoods prior to the
passage of zoning laws. It was noted that in comparison to other cities, the Brookings parking
regulations are adequate or greater than most. A citywide study would take more citizen
involvement, staff time and funding. A citywide approach may also create new problems and
hardships not currently contemplated. They also discussed a citywide ordinance verses a
localized approach. Localized options included alternating one-sided parking, seasonal bans,
partial hour bans, parking permits and contacting other cities for ideas. It was noted that the
Planning Commission is currently looking at an increase in parking requirements. Referral to
the City Traffic Safety Committee for review of the safety issues including taking public
testimony was suggested. Creation of a “blue ribbon” ad hoc committee consisting of a broad
cross section of the community to study the issue and provide formal recommendations was
suggested.
Mayor Reed felt this is a problem that the City can’t keep pushing off and feels more ideas need
to be generated to address this problem. This issue has been presented to the City Council
and now has a responsibility to the citizens to figure out a solution. He suggested a more
comprehensive plan for the city with several options for the Council to consider.
Jeff Weldon, City Manager, noted enforcement is an obstacle to achieving compliance. Selective
enforcement could address a complaint area, but more resources would be required to achieve
consistent enforcement. The other issue is signage. Ordinances can’t be enforced without
proper signage and notice to the motorists. The parking problem isn’t as narrow as just
rentals. Sufficient off-street parking at single family homes is also a problem in Brookings. And,
different neighborhoods have different characteristics. Streets are a public right-of-way to be
used by the general public and unless the area is signed or additional restrictions are posted,
the public has the ability to park there. Property owners do not have an inherent right to
parking spaces in front of their homes. The 72-hour limit also poses enforcement problems in
that people know how to get around the law. Accessory vehicles further compound the issue.
He asked that whatever changes are recommended to keep in mind the issues of enforcement
and resources for effectiveness.
Reed recommended that Kubal and the City Manager develop a draft structure and including
mission/charge for the blue ribbon ad hoc committee for discussion and review at the next
work session.
City Council Member Ex-Officio Reports. Kubal reported that the Utility Board is
holding hearings on their 2010 rate increases with final approval scheduled in December.
Whaley reported the Hospital Board is discussing the H1N1 issue, weekly meetings for
managers, 2010 budget, records management system, bid awards on the expansion project,
temporary housing for the ambulance bay, and notice of groundbreaking.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
68
Consent Agenda. The following items were removed from the consent agenda for individual
discussion and action: Resolution No.’s 101-09, 102-09, 103-09, 104-09, 105-09, and 106-09. A
motion was made by Bartley, seconded by McClemans, to approve the consent agenda as
amended.
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action to approve the October 13th Council Meeting minutes.
C. Action to approve Phase 2 of the Safe Routes to School Agreement between
South Dakota Department of Transportation, the City of Brookings, and the
Brookings School District.
D. Action on Resolution No. 99-09, A Resolution Directing Preparation of
Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into Installments, and Providing for the
Collection Thereof for Alley Assessment Project 2008-04STA (Alley from 7th
Avenue to 8th Avenue between 6th Street and 7th Street).
Resolution No. 99-09
Resolution Directing Preparation of Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments into
Installments, and Providing for the Collection thereof for Street Assessment
Project 2008-04STA
(East/West Alley from 6th St. to 7th St. between 7th Ave. and 8th Ave.)
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 a Resolution
93-08, Resolution of Necessity for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA. 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 Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA 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 $24,373.68
Engineering, inspection, fiscal, legal expense and publication 1462.42
$25,836.10
4. The total cost of said improvement shall be paid as follows: Assessable costs-$24,836.10
5. There shall be made and filed in the office of the City Manager 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 alley constituting said improvement.
6. The assessment shall be divided into five (5) equal annual installments.
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%).
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
69
E. Action on Resolution No. 100-09, a Resolution Amending a Funding Agreement
for Bike Trail Project POENH(147) PCN 00C2 & EM 8006(49) PCN 010A.
Resolution No. 100-09
Resolution for Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 713475
Between South Dakota Department of Transportation and City of Brookings
Bike Trail Project POENH(147) PCN 00C2 & EM 8006(49) PCN 010A
Whereas, the City of Brookings has identified the need to complete its multi-use trail
system for adequate transportation; and
Whereas, it has been determined by the State of South Dakota that the project is eligible
for Transportation Enhancement Funding and High Priority Funds; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings is the sponsoring applicant for funds; and
Whereas, the City is capable of administering the federal aid project; and
Whereas, the funding level for the high priority project EM 8006(49) PCN 010A has been
increased to $90,613.77; and
Therefore, Be It Resolved that the City of Brooking duly authorizes the Mayor of the City
of Brookings to sign Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 713476 between South Dakota
Department of Transportation and the City of Brookings.
This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Governor’s Awards for Employment of People who have Disability Nominees. The
Governor’s Award is a program which recognizes individuals and employers for their
contributions to the rehabilitation and employment of persons with disabilities in South Dakota.
The Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities and Brookings NDEAM (National
Disability Employment Awareness Month) Committee are nominating the following local
nominations for the 2010 Governor’s Awards: Aramark, Inc. for Outstanding Large Private
Employer, the Valley Restaurant in Volga for Outstanding Small Private Employer, Kristi Glenn
and Amy McGregor for Outstanding Employees with a Disability.
Resolution No. 101-09 – Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by
McClemans, to approve Resolution No. 101-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO#3 Final) for 2008-02STA 15th Street South, Camelot Drive, and Christine Avenue Street
Assessment Project (Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.). All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 101-09
A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#3 Final) For
2008-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Assessment
Project Winter Brothers Underground, Inc.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
70
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-02STA
15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Assessment Project: Construction
Change Order Number 3 Final: Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a
total increase of $1,844.61. Adjust completion date to July 22, 2009.
Resolution No. 102-09 – Change Order. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by
Kubal, to approve Resolution No. 102-09, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order (CCO#1)
for 2008-123 Sieler Addition Street Project (Clark Drew Construction, Inc.). All present voted
yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 102-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1(CCO#1) For
2008-123 Sieler Addition Street Project
Clark Drew Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-123
Sieler Addition Street Project: Construction Change Order Number 1: Adjust contract for
additional work to install 8” double wall pvc drain pipe for a total increase of $18,279.20.
Adjust contract completion date by 24 days to July 24, 2009.
Resolution No. 103-09 – Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by
Thorpe, to approve Resolution No. 103-09, A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order
(CCO Final) for 2008-123 Sieler Addition Street Project (Clark Drew Construction, Inc.). All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 103-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2(CCO#2 final) for
2008-123 Sieler Addition Street Project
Clark Drew Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-123
Sieler Addition Street Project: Construction Change Order Number 2 final: Adjust final
quantities to as-built quantities for a total decrease of $10,931.38 to final out the project. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 104-09 – Change Order. A motion was made Kubal, seconded by Whaley,
to approve Resolution No. 104-09, a Resolution Authorizing Change Order (CCO#2) for
2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project (Rounds Construction)
Resolution No. 104-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2(CCO#2) For
2008-09STI Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project
Rounds Construction
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-09STI
Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project: Construction Change Order Number 2:
Move 12” Water main to the north side of 20th Street South.
Resolution No. 105-09 – Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by
Thorpe, to approve Resolution No. 105-09, A Resolution Authorizing Change Order (CCO#3)
for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project (Rounds
Construction). All present voted yes; motion carried.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
71
Resolution No. 105-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 3(CCO#3) For
2008-09STI Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project
Rounds Construction
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-09STI
Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project: Construction Change Order Number 3:
Adjust contract for additional work for asphalt patching, coring sanitary sewer manholes, boring
8” water line, roadway shaping, and live water tap for an increase of $15,192.10 to the contract.
TABLED Resolution No. 106-09 – Change Order. A motion was made by McClemans,
seconded by Whaley, to TABLE Resolution No. 106-09, A Resolution Authorizing Change
Order (CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project
(Rounds Construction) to the November 17, 2009 City Council meeting. All present voted yes
to TABLE; motion carried.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 27-09. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 27-09,
Budget Amendment #2, an Ordinance Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009
Budget for the Purpose of Providing for Additional Funds for the Operation of the City. Public
Hearing: November 17, 2009
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 28-09. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 28-09, an
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to Off-
Street Parking Requirements for a two-family dwelling for the purposes of administration of the
Zoning Ordinance. Public Hearing: November 17, 2009
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 29-09. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 29-09, an
Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to
Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business and industrial districts for the
purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Public Hearing: November 17, 2009
Ordinance No. 25-09. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by McClemans, to approve
Ordinance No. 25-09, an Ordinance Amending Article V. of Chapter 2 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings, South Dakota and Pertaining to Human Rights
Committees. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Ordinance No. 26-09. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 26-09, an Ordinance to
change the Zoning within the Joint Jurisdictional Area surrounding the City of Brookings. No
public comment was made. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Kubal to approve.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 107-09. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. 107-09; a Resolution
Levying Assessment for Assessment Project 2008-03STA, Downtown Streetscape Project. No
public comment was made. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Thorpe, to approve.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 107-09
Levying Assessment for Street Assessment
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
72
Project No. 2008-03STA Downtown Streetscape Project
Whereas, The City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under Project
No. 2008-03STA. (Downtown Streetscape Project)
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The City Council has made all investigation which it deems necessary and has found and
determined that the amount which each lot or tract will be benefited by the construction of
the street improvement heretofore designated as Street Assessment Project No. 2008-
03STA is the amount stated in the proposed assessment roll.
2. The assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-03STA is hereby approved and the
assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every lot, piece or parcel of land
thereby described.
3. The assessment shall be divided into ten (10) equal annual installments for streets.
4. Such assessments, unless paid within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing of a statement
of account by the City, shall be collected by the City in accordance with the procedure for
Plan One in Sections to 9-43-51, South Dakota Compiled Laws of 1967, as amended.
5. Interest of zero (0) percent per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the
assessment.
Resolution No. 108-09. A motion was made by Thorpe, seconded by Bartley, to approve
Resolution No. 108-09; a Resolution Setting forth the Fines for Parking Violations during Snow
Removal in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No.108-09
Resolution Setting Forth the Fines for Parking Violations during Snow Removal in
the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Be It Resolved by the Governing Body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the
following Fines shall be effective for the payment of violations of “parking prohibited during
snow removal” which are paid through the Brookings Police Department within 72 hours of
the time of issuance of the parking ticket and also prior to filing of a Complaint with the Clerk
of Courts.
Parking Prohibited During Snow Removal: If paid within 72 hours $35.00; if paid subsequent to
72 hours after ticket issuance, and prior to filing of complaint $50.00.
Brookings School District Request for Sidewalk. Brookings School District is requesting
sidewalks be installed along 15th Street South between Medary Avenue and 17th Avenue South.
Dr. Roger DeGroot, Superintendent of Schools, indicated the highest priority sidewalk is on
the north side of 15th Street South, from Camelot Drive to the East, to provide a safe sidewalk
connection to 17th Avenue South for the students. Dr. DeGroot said the area is 147 feet in
length and a 4’ wide sidewalk would cost approximately $2,000. All of the lots have homes
with sidewalks in this priority area, with the exception of one vacant lot owned by Blair Hill
Properties. The City Council has the authority to order sidewalks to be installed as stated in
the current City Ordinance Section 74-182.
Scott Hodges, Blair Hill Properties, said he and the other owners support safety of children and
the District’s request; however, noting other vacant lots in town that have gone without
sidewalks for years. He further noted that developers are not required to install sidewalks in
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
73
undeveloped areas. He questioned who would be responsible for maintenance and insurance.
He felt it was a big request to ask the developers to install sidewalks where they are not
required and also maintain them. Sidewalks would get destroyed when the lot is built. This
area isn’t even platted.
It was clarified that the owner would be responsible to maintain the sidewalk and provide
liability insurance and sidewalks could be installed in areas prior to platting. It was noted that
this is a recent ordinance change and the City has not enacted this provision before. The
property owners and School District could also reach additional agreements regarding
maintenance. Another suggestion was a gravel walkway, but maintenance was still a concern of
the developers. The City could also install the sidewalk and assess the work back to the
property owners; however, there are hearing requirements and that process would take some
time.
Weldon asked that the City not be made responsible for maintaining any private sidewalks as it
would set a dangerous precedence.
Hodges reiterated his concern regarding the installation of sidewalks on an undeveloped lot and
the likelihood of damaging the sidewalks during construction. He also objected to the owners
being responsible for maintenance and liability, citing the request was unreasonable.
Dr. DeGroot said the school has sidewalks on all sides with a crosswalk at Camelot. The area
under discussion gets too muddy forcing kids into the busy street. He feels a sidewalk only
makes sense for the safety of the children and that it’s a small request to ask that the students
have a safe path.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal, to order that a sidewalk be
installed at property located at 15th Street South between Medary Avenue and 17th Avenue
South, legal description: Lot 2, Block 1, Nelson 4th Addition (south side of lot as stated
pursuant to current city ordinance 74-182.)
AMENDMENT: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bartley, to include a deadline of
November 16, 2009, weather permitting. On the amendment, all present voted yes, except
Kubal voted no, motion carried to amend. On the main motion as amended, all present voted
yes, except Kubal voted no, motion carried.
Resolution No. 109-09. Public hearing was held on Resolution No. 109-09; a Resolution
Annexing the North 1,580 feet of the East ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 2-T109N-R50W,
excluding Lot C, Christie Addition and Outlots A, 1A, B, and 1B of the NW ¼ of Section 2-
T109N-R50W. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Kubal, to approve. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 109-09
Whereas, The City of Brookings is authorized pursuant to South Dakota Codified Law 9-4-1 to
annex contiguous territory upon receipt of a written petition, describing said territory sought to
be annexed, signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal voters and by the owner or
owners of not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of said territory, and
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
74
Whereas, The City of Brookings desires to annex the following described property, to wit:
The north 1,580 feet of the east ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 2-T109N-R50W, excluding Lot C,
Christie Addition and Outlots A, 1A, B, and 1B of the NW ¼ of Section 2-T109N-R50W , and
Whereas, The aforesaid land is contiguous to the present boundaries of the City of Brookings, and
Whereas, The City of Brookings has received a Petition for Annexation of Territory signed by the
owners of greater than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of the aforesaid property and by not less
than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal voters residing in said territory, now therefore
Be It Resolved by the City of Brookings, South Dakota that the property described above is
hereby annexed to the City of Brookings.
Presentation on proposed McCrory Gardens Visitor Center. Representatives of South
Dakota State University provided an in-depth presentation of the proposed McCrory Gardens
Visitor Center project. The University submitted a subsidy funding request to the City in the
2010 budget cycle last June.
The following is a summary of the PowerPoint presentation given by Dr. Laurie Stenberg-
Nichols, SDSU Provost.
McCrory Gardens has a tripartite mission: 1) Outdoor Teaching Laboratory. McCrory Gardens is
accessed by SDSU Classes, the SD Cooperative Extension Service’s Master Gardener program, Pre-K
through 12 educational opportunities, as well as public education and continuing education for the
people of Brookings and surrounding area. 2) Research. Professor McCrory, whom the gardens are
named after, envisioned in 1966 a research garden to display trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers that
were or could be, a part of South Dakota’s landscape. This is the heart of the research mission. 3)
Outreach and patron considerations. Continue to have collaboration with the museums to help
Brookings be a destination. They have between 40-60 active volunteers maintaining the Gardens for
the approximate 6,000 to 8,000 annual visitors. With a center located here, it would open up the
opportunity to host conferences and other events besides the receptions, weddings, and retreats which
currently take place.
SDSU is requesting a one-time construction request in the amount of $1 million from the city general
fund. This would cover 28% of the $3.55 million project and be applied to the public spaces of the
project; the great hall and lobby areas.
Architect’s renderings of the proposed building were shown. The center would be located on the east
side of the gardens, north of the perennial garden section, with an entrance off of 22nd Avenue near the
current auxiliary entrance. The building size is approximately 10,444 square feet.
Project estimates for the initial facility is $3.55 million; 8,670 square feet for a great hall, lobby,
restrooms, and offices. This would also include site development with utilities and a parking lot. A
gateway design would be located at 6th Street and 22nd Avenue with the entrance off of 22nd Avenue.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
75
The proposed expanded facility would increase the project cost to $5.5 million; adding an additional
1,774 square feet for two (2) conference rooms. This would also include an additional parking lot
further north of the proposed site, a South Plaza, and a Children’s Garden.
Project funding. SDSU has a lead gift of $1.5 million. This gift includes the initial concept development
work through the SDSU Foundation which advances the project more aggressively than originally
proposed. The SDSU Foundation is working aggressively, along with the Friends of McCrory Gardens, to
raise between $1 to $3 million in private funding to be presented as matching funds with the lead gift.
In conclusion, the McCrory Gardens Visitors Center would benefit SDSU and the Brookings area in
providing an outdoor events venue unique to Brookings. It would be an amenity building Brookings as a
creative community, and making Brookings a destination location for patrons of all ages.
Council Discussion:
Bartley asked if this funding request was for the 2011 budget process or was it a budget
amendment request. Dr. Nichols said this project will require Board of Regent and Legislative
approval. The deadline for the Regents is December 1st. If the university misses this deadline,
the project will be delayed a year.
Mayor Reed noted the private donor has assisted with other city projects, including providing
upfront funding allowing the city to make no interest payments, had made the same offer for
this project. This was done for the aquatic center project and final payment on that loan is
expected in 2014.
Weldon noted the university’s subsidy application indicated construction in 2011 with a 2012
opening. He asked if that schedule has been changed. Dr. Nichols said yes, the timeline has
been accelerated at the request of the donor.
Bartley questioned if the Council could encumber future budgets and councils with a loan
request. Britzman said yes, the City would enter into a promissory note with the donor.
Bartley asked if the loan could be structured to not commence or have interest incur on this
project until the aquatic center loan was repaid. Yes, that option could be explored and
structured like any other loan with terms not to exceed 10 years.
It was noted that this facility would compete with other private and city facilities. The Council
would need to know more details to better understand the project’s impact on the city’s plans.
Dr. Nichols noted that the Board of Regents requires all funding commitments in place before
moving forward on a project. However, a funding commitment does not mean cash on hand,
but rather a pledge.
There was consensus to add this issue to the November 17th agenda. In the meantime, City
Council members were asked to email the City Manager with their questions so the
information could be gathered and provided at the meeting.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
76
Development of a usage agreement similar to other city/university projects was suggested.
Change Orders. It was noted, that until further notice, all change order action items would
be on the regular agenda and no longer be on the consent agenda.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Whaley, to enter into
executive session for purposes of consulting with legal counsel/reviewing communications
about pending contractual matters at 7:43 p.m. with the City Attorney, City Manager, and City
Clerk present. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bartley, to exit executive session
at 8:02 p.m.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Thorpe, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
77
CONSENT AGENDA #4
C. Action on Resolution No. 110-09, updating the EEOC Statement.
Date: November 12, 2009
To: City Council
From: Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Donna Langland, Human Resources Director
Subject: City of Brookings Equal Opportunity Policy Statement
Please review for approval the attached resolution to update the City of Brookings
Equal Opportunity Policy Statement. This update to the Equal Opportunity Policy
Statement is necessary for compliance with the new Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) which will take effective November 21, 2009. The
employment provisions (“Title II”) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act,
will prohibit employers from discharging, refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating on
the basis of genetic information. The City of Brookings Personnel Policy Manual will be
updated accordingly.
Resolution No. 110-09
Equal Opportunity Policy Statement
It is the fundamental policy of the City of Brookings to provide equal opportunity for all
residents, applicants and employees as it pertains to provision of services and employment
opportunities in order to ensure that there will be no discrimination against any person on the
basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, citizenship status, sexual
orientation, political affiliation, genetic predisposition or carrier status, disability, marital or
veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by state or federal law.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
78
CONSENT AGENDA #4
D. Action on Resolution No. 111-09, for 2010 Dental Insurance
Contribution Rates.
Enclosed for City Council review and approval, please find attached a resolution for an
increase of the monthly contribution rate for the City of Brookings Delta Dental Plan
effective January 1, 2010.
The proposed rate change for 2010 health, dental, vision and life insurance within the
2010 budgeting process was a projected 10% increase overall to the employee and the
City of Brookings.
The premium increase announcement from Delta Dental insurance was 3.0% for plan
year 2010 even though expenses for the most recent months were running 7.1% higher
than premiums. With the mounting evidence linking oral health to general health, an
investment in dental benefits may not only be popular among employees but may also
help to hold down medical costs. The City of Brookings pays for 75% of the single
dental premium towards all levels of coverage.
There are no projected premium increases for health, vision and life insurance effective
Jan. 1, 2010. The projected 0% increase for health insurance for 2010 is based on our
City of Brookings and Brookings Municipal Utilities health trust account balance at this
time; and we were notified by the vision and life insurance providers that there would
not be any premium increases for those specific benefits during the upcoming calendar
year.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
79
Resolution No. 111-09
Establishing Dental Insurance Monthly Contribution Rates
for the City of Brookings Dental Insurance Plan
WHEREAS, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2010 employee and employer contributions for the
dental insurance plan be established as follows:
CITY GENERAL & PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES
Employer's Employee's
Share (75%)
of Single Rate 2010 Share TOTAL
Employee Only $26.13 $8.71 $34.84
Employee/Spouse $26.13 $40.71 $66.84
Employee/Child(ren) $26.13 $42.57 $68.70
Family $26.13 $67.01 $93.14
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
_____________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
80
CONSENT AGENDA #4
E. Action on an appointment to the Human Rights Committee.
Appoint Patty Bacon to the vacated position on the Human Rights Committee; term
beginning 11/17/2009 through 1/1/2012. This position was vacated by Ryan Howlett.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
81
CONSENT AGENDA #4
F. Action on an amendment to the Police Union Contract.
Following City Council approval, the Union Contract Agreements were submitted to
the Teamsters Union for final review and signature approval, etc. There were minimal
grammatical recommended changes to be made within the City General Union Contract
which have been already made and forwarded back to the Teamsters agent for final
signature approval. However, it was discovered that the Police Union Contract had two
areas that needed to be brought back to the Council for final review/approval. These
two recommended changes are attached for your review and approval effective with the
2010 through 2012 Police Contract. The first change on page 1 is just a title change
within the contract for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union. The second
change on page 23 of the contract is a change in the clothing allowance for investigators
within the Police Department from $250.00 to $350.00. This increased clothing
allowance had been approved a number of years ago with the approval at that time
given by a previous City Manager, however, a Memorandum of Understanding had not
been completed and therefore, was an oversight during this last negotiation process.
This change does not impact the cost or past practice since it has been $350 for a few
years; it only corrects an oversight in language.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
82
CITY OF BROOKINGS - POLICE LABOR CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2010, by and between the
City of Brookings, South Dakota, hereinafter referred to as the "Employer or the City" and the General
Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 749, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehouseman and Helpers of America, hereinafter referred to as the "Union".
1. RECOGNITION
lA. The employer hereby recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining
representative pursuant to SDCL 3-18, for all the employees employed by the
Employer in the following described unit:
lA.l All regular full-time employees employed in the Police Department of
Brookings, South Dakota, including Patrol Officers, Sergeants, Investigators,
Communication Operators, Police Clerk, Animal Control Officer, excluding the
Chief, Captains, Lieutenants, Communications Commander, part-time personnel
and all other City employees.
lB. As used in this contract, where appropriate, the masculine includes the feminine, and
the singular includes the plural (and vice versa).
2. SEPARABILITYAND SAVING CLAUSE
If any provision of this Agreement is in contravention of the laws or regulations of the
United States or the State of South Dakota, such provisions shall be superseded by the
appropriate provisions of such regulation; so long as the same is in force and effect, but all other
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in force and effect.
3. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
3A. The Union recognizes the prerogatives of the City Manager and City Council of the
City to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with its responsibility
and the powers of authority which the City has not officially abridged, delegated, or
modified by this Agreement, and such powers and authority are retained by the City.
3B. These management rights include, but are not limited to the following:
3B.l To utilize personnel, methods and means in the most appropriate and efficient
manner possible; to manage and direct the employees of the City; to hire,
schedule, promote, transfer, assign, train, or re-train employees in positions
with the City, and to suspend, discharge or take positions with the City, and to
suspend, discharge or take other appropriate action against employees for just
cause;
3B.2 To determine the size and composition of the work force, to eliminate or
discontinue any job or classification and to lay off employees for lack of work or
lack of appropriate funds;
1
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
83
39D. Investigators shall be granted a two three hundred fifty dollar ($250.00 $350.00)
uniform allowance each January 1. Police uniforms provided shall be deducted from said
amount.
39E. The Employer agrees to reimburse employees the actual cost less ten percent (10%) of
employee's personal items damaged in the line of duty not as a result of the employee's
negligence or misconduct including only the following:
Eyeglasses, watches, weapons, and tape recorders
Civilian clothing (if required)
(Maximum $250.00 per item)
This section does not apply to items of personal property covered by or reimbursed pursuant to South
Dakota compensation laws. If an employee is reimbursed for the damage from any other source, he shall
reimburse the City for any payments made hereunder. The City agrees to replace any item damaged due
to work related incidents within two (2) weeks. Upon receipt of purchase, the City will reimburse up to
$100.00 (One hundred dollars) for leather to all permanent, sworn officers who did not receive the
entitlement when it was originally provided.
40. FIREARMS
The City shall provide weapons for all officers.
40A. The required on-duty weapon package as designated by the Chief will consist of a .40
caliber semi-automatic pistol with two (2) extra clips, double clip holder and holster.
40B. Those officers who choose not to purchase the .40 caliber weapon will be issued the
complete .40 caliber weapon package by the City for on duty use. The City issued
weapon package shall be returned to the Chief of Police or his designee upon separation
of employment.
40C. During the probationary period, the City will issue new officers their duty weapon and
required leather accessories. The serial number, make and model will be registered with
the Chief.
40D. Standards for non-uniform officers weapons shall be set by the Chief of Police.
40E. The officer will maintain the on-duty firearm at a satisfactory level to insure proper
functioning of the firearm.
40F. The firearm will be inspected for up-keep, maintenance and proper functioning four (4)
times a year by a designated firearms instructor within the Department. If any
malfunction or discrepancy is found in a firearm that the officer has purchased, the cost
to replace or repair will be at the officer's expense.
41. FIREARM OUALIFICATION
41A. There are three distinct types of firearm exercises, each of which shall be scheduled at
the discretion of the Chief of Police. These are:
41A.1 Firearm Training: These exercises shall be supervised by a qualified instructor,
and officers are therein instructed on proper firearm use.
23
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
84
CONSENT AGENDA #4
G. Action to approve a Preliminary Plat for Lots 1 – 7, Block 6,
Valley View Addition.
Applicant: BlairHill Properties, Inc.
Proposal: Modify a preliminary plan for a residential subdivision
Background: The initial preliminary plat for the Valley View Addition was approved in
2007. All the lots north of Sun Valley Street have been final platted over the last two
years according to the plan. However, Block 6 was not projected to be subdivided on
the original preliminary plat because higher density land uses were anticipated.
Specifics: This revised preliminary plat involves seven (7) lots on the north side of the
future Block 6. Lot area regulations meet or exceed the minimum requirement. In
addition, corner lots are wider as required by the subdivision ordinances. The land
south and east of the Cumberland Court right-of-way was platted in June. It is assumed
that the south half of Block 6, if developed, would be accessed from Rio Grand Avenue.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
89
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
November 3, 2009
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Dave Kurtz called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on November 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were Wayne Avery, Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, Al Heuton, and
Kurtz. Larry Fjeldos was absent. Also present were Lynn Osika, Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds,
Donna Steenson, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck,
Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #3- BlairHill Properties, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat of Lots 1 – 7, Block 6, Valley
View Addition
(Cameron/Fargen) Motion to approve the preliminary plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #3 – Cameron inquired about drainage plans. Lanning replied that a preliminary
stormwater plan was approved for this area. Fargen asked if there were development plans for
the south half of the block. Scott Hodges of BlairHill Properties, Inc., stated that the demand
was higher now for single-family homes so this area could be developed in the same manner.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
90
CONSENT AGENDA #4
H. Action on Resolution No. 112-09, a Resolution fixing time and
place for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll for Street Assessment
Project 2008-04STA (East/West Alley from 6th Street to 7th Street
between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
The Brookings City Council approved Resolution of Necessity No. 39-08 on May 27,
2008, authorizing the City to proceed with bidding for an alley assessment project. This
project consists of two alleys located between 6th Street and 7th Street, and 7th Avenue
and 8th Avenue. The alleys located between these streets are situated in a “T” fashion,
with one alley running north and south, and one alley running east and west. This
project was modified to only include the east/west alley because the north/south
portion of the alley was vacated. All of the project costs will be assessed to the abutting
property owners of the east/west alley with all of the project costs being assessed to the
abutting property owners.
This project has been finished and is going through the assessment process. This
resolution will set the public hearing date for the alley repair project, which will be
December 8th, 2009. Resolution No. 39-08 included the estimated front foot cost of
$35.50 as well as stipulating that the assessment can be paid over a five year period at
10% interest. The actual assessed front foot cost for this alley is $36.91 which is the
actual construction costs plus the 6% engineering and administration fee. This fee was
slightly higher than the estimated amount due to the mobilization costs being divided
among fewer owners after the north/south portion of the alley was vacated.
The engineering office will mail a hearing notice and the actual cost of alley repairs by
receipt first class mail to each owner on the project as required by State law. There will
be one final resolution to levy the alley assessment after the hearing.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
91
RESOLUTION NO. 112-09
RESOLUTION FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING UPON
ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STREET ASSESSMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-04STA
(East/West Alley from 6th Street to 7th Street between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue)
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The assessment roll for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA having been filed
in the office of the City Clerk on the 9th day of November, 2009, the City Council shall meet in
the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, the 8th day of December, 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 Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA, 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 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
92
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests
5. Invitation for a Citizen to schedule time on the Council Agenda
for an issue not listed.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
6. SDSU Student Senate Report.
President – Matt Tollefson
Vice-President – Michael Kendall
Administrative Assistant – Brandon Bausch
Finance Chair – Ashley Dumke
State & Local Chair – Catherine Grandorff
http://studentorgs.sdstate.org/studentsassociation/Default.htm
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
93
First Reading**
**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. 30-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the definition of a Coffeehouse.
Public Hearing: December 8, 2009
Proposal: Expand on the definition of a coffeehouse
Background: The coffeehouse definition and use were created in 2007. One coffeehouse
has been established in the B2-A District since that time.
Specifics: This amendment is an attempt to broaden the definition of a coffeehouse while
making sure we will still have a clear distinction from a deli, sub shop, fast food or full
service restaurant. The main reason is that the B-2A District generally allows low-traffic,
low impact commercial uses so this use should reflect that goal.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the amendment.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
94
ORDINANCE NO. 30-09
An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Brookings and
pertaining to the definition of a Coffee House for the purposes of administration of
the zoning ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota: that Sec. 94.1.
Definitions of Article I. of Chapter 94 shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Coffee House: An establishment that sells primarily coffee and other similar refreshments and
may include the sale of coffee beans, and pre-baked pastries, bagels, and cookies, cold and hot
sandwiches and soup. The term pre-baked means no baking or food preparation would be
allowed on-site. This use would not have waiter/waitress table service, serve full meals or have
kitchen facilities that could prepare full meals
Section 2. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: November 17, 2009
SECOND READING: December 8, 2009
PUBLISHED: December 11, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
___________________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
97
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
November 3, 2009
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Dave Kurtz called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on November 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were Wayne Avery, Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, Al Heuton, and
Kurtz. Larry Fjeldos was absent. Also present were Lynn Osika, Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds,
Donna Steenson, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck,
Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #2 – The City of Brookings has submitted an amendment to the Zoning ordinance
pertaining to the definition of a coffeehouse.
(Heuton/Fargen) Motion to approve the amendment. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #2 – Hanson explained that the coffeehouse definition was expanded to include cold and
hot sandwiches and soup. There was also language in the amendment that limited table service
and kitchen facilities to distinguish it from a restaurant.
Heuton asked where the B-2A Districts were located. Hanson replied mostly on 22nd
Avenue, but there were smaller parcels near downtown and Main Avenue South.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
98
Sec. 94-133. BUSINESS B-2A OFFICE DISTRICT
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for a mixture of office and other compatible and
complimentary uses. This district is intended to be located in close proximity to commercial uses
or used as a transitional zone between commercial and residential uses. An emphasis shall be
placed on landscaping and site arrangement.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in
this title, when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Business B-2A Office
District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Office
2. Personal Health Service
3. Funeral home or mortuary
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with the conditions prescribed herein:
1. Broadcast station or studio
a. No broadcast towers allowed
2. Service Store or hair salon
a. Floor area shall not exceed 2,000 square feet
b. No tanning beds shall be allowed in conjunction with these uses
3. Coffeehouse
a. Floor area of the use shall not exceed 1,000 square feet
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Home occupation
2. Mixed business/residential use
3. Financial institution
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The B-2A district regulations shall be as follows:
Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
All Uses - - 25' -* 20'* 35'
*A twenty-five foot (25') landscaped area shall be required between an abutting residential district boundary line
and any structure, access drive, parking lot or other accessory use.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the B-2A District are buildings
and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
99
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the B-2A District shall be in
conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter.
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the B-2A District shall be in conformance with the regulations
set forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter.
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the B-2A District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in article II of this chapter.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
100
First Reading**
**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. 31-09: An application for a Conditional Use to
establish an apartment with 3 units on the West 183 feet of the
East 288 feet of the South 140 feet of Block 11, Parkdale Home
Second Addition (208 West 8th Street).
Public Hearing: December 8, 2009
Applicant: John Moriarty
Proposal: Convert an older home into an apartment with three (3) units
Background: This house was moved onto this parcel in 1965. Several additions and
outbuildings were added over the years.
Block 11 consists of several acres of land. There are three (3) houses on the block of
which two (2) are owned by the petitioner. The block is also bisected by Six-Mile Creek
causing the block to be in the floodway or floodplain. Therefore, future development in
this block is improbable. Adjacent land uses to the south and east involve predominantly
single-family dwellings. There is a duplex at the corner of Wilson Avenue and West 8th
Street.
Specifics: The original lot size for this house was about 83’ x 140’. In planning for a new
house to the west, the applicant set aside an additional 100’ x 140’ area for 208 West 8th
Street. This sideyard would become a parking area that would serve the proposed
conversion of the house into three (3) apartment units. It appears access to at least one
unit would be from the back.
The primary focus for reviewing and deciding on the application is determining the
impact on the use of adjacent properties. In addition, the proposed parking areas must
also be examined for their impact on adjacent uses.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the conditional use subject to the condition stated in the ordinance.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
101
Ordinance No. 31-09
An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for a three-unit
apartment in the Residence R-2 District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for a three-unit apartment on the west 183 feet of the east
288 feet of the south 140 feet of Block 11, Parkdale Home Second Addition with the following
conditions:
1. Approval granted for the establishment of one 3-bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit,
and one 1-bedroom unit only.
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: November 17, 2009
SECOND READING: December 8, 2009
PUBLISHED: December 11, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
107
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
November 3, 2009
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Dave Kurtz called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on November 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were Wayne Avery, Greg Fargen, Alan Gregg, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, Al Heuton, and
Kurtz. Larry Fjeldos was absent. Also present were Lynn Osika, Scott Hodges, Keith Rounds,
Donna Steenson, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck,
Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #5 – John Moriarty has submitted an application for a Conditional Use to establish an
apartment (3 units) on the west 183 feet of the east 288 feet of the south 140 feet of Block 11,
Parkdale Home Second Addition.
(Gregg/Gustafson) Motion to approve the conditional use.
(Cameron/Heuton) Amendment to the motion to add the following condition:
1. Approval granted for the establishment of one 3-bedroom unit, one 2- bedroom
unit, and one 1- bedroom unit only.
All present voted aye. AMENDMENT CARRIED.
The original motion, as amended, was voted on. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #5 – Hanson summarized the history of the property. The existing house was moved to
the site in 1965 and was used as a single-family dwelling. The owner recently built a new home
next door. The older home would be converted into one 3-bedroom unit, one 2-bedroom unit,
and one 1-bedroom unit. Parking would be located in the driveway and on the west side lot
line. A location map indicated the current uses of adjoining properties.
Donna Steenson, a neighbor, supported the request. She noted that she had not
encountered any neighbors who were opposed to the application.
Cameron felt he could support the request but only if the proposed bedrooms-per-unit
design was adhered to. Heuton concurred with Cameron.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
108
Sec. 94-126. RESIDENCE R-2 TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a density of six to
eighteen dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single-family, two-family, townhouse
and multiple-family residential uses plus support facilities such as schools, parks, churches and
community and public buildings.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in
this title, when referred to in this section, are the regulations of the Residence R-2 Two-Family
District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private
garages, parking areas, etc.
2. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private
garages, parking areas, etc.
(d) Permitted Special Uses: A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with conditions prescribed herein:
1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Sections 94-124(d)(R-1A) and 94-
125(d)(R-1B).
2. Single-family zero (0') sideyard dwelling.
a. A maximum of four (4) attached dwelling units are permitted.
b. Additional lot area requirements apply (subsection f of this section).
3. Funeral home or mortuary.
a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector street.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Vocational or trade school
2. Retirement or nursing home
3. Group home
4. Major home occupation
5. Public recreation facility
6. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge
7. Domestic abuse shelter
8. Townhouse
9. Apartment or condominium
10. Office
11. Bed and breakfast establishment
12. Fraternity/Sorority
13. Day Care Facility
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The R-2 district regulations shall be as follows:
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
109
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family
Dwelling 7,500 7,500 50' 25' 7' 25' 35'
SF 0' Sideyard
2 Units 6,000 12,000 80' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-
party wall
SF 0' Sideyard
3 Units 5,000 15,000 100' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-
party wall
SF 0' Sideyard
4 Units 4,500 18,000 120' 25' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-
party wall
Two-Family Dwellings
Condominiums / Townhouses
2 Units 4,950 9,900 65' 25' 7' 25' 35'
3 Units 4,100 12,300 80' 25' 7' 25' 35'
4 Units 3,675 14,700 95' 25' 7' 25' 35'
Apts, Condos,
Townhouses*
5 or more Units 2,420** 16,000 100' 25' 7'*** 25' 35'
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Other Allowable
Uses 7,500 50' 25' 7'*** 25' 35
*Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling
unit exclusive of required building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3)
of the landscaped area shall be located in a continuous, single tract which contains no portions
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
110
thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to either the entire width or entire
length of said tract. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential uses
according to Section 94-401.
**A maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed.
***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more
stories in height.
Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities,
nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual
rooms.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-2 District are buildings
and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-2 District shall be in
conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI.
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations
set forth in division 5 of article VI.
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in article II.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
111
Second Readings/Public Hearings
9. Ordinance No. 27-09: Budget Amendment #2, an Ordinance
Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009 Budget
for the purpose of providing for additional funds for the operation
of the City.
Enclosed for City Council review and action is the second and presumably final budget
amendment for the year which addresses projects and bids accepted by Council during
the 2009 calendar year.
Projects included building improvements done for the Brookings Public Library, Swiftel
Center and the Larson Ice Arena. The Library added a coffee shop financed by private
donations and the air conditioner at the Library had to be replaced this summer. The
Swiftel Center has been experiencing a leaking roof because of the design. The copulas
are being removed. The Larson Ice Arena added a front entrance and upgraded the
red rink seating and locker rooms. BISA has donated $365,451 for the red rink project.
A private donor is financing the front entrance project.
The budget amendment also recognizes the loss of interest income and building permits
due to the economy.
Several grants were received by the Police Department and Community Development
received the Safe Routes to School Grant.
The budget amendment for the Storm Drainage is recognizing the action to purchase
land for the Storm Drainage Project #1.
The miscellaneous amendments to the General Fund create neither an increase nor
decrease over all.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
Ordinance No. 27-09
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 is a need to adjust the 2009 budget to respond to the actual revenues and
expenditures in fiscal year 2009,
AND WHEREAS, there is a need to allocate the non departmental expenditures and the contingency
for an emergency purchase of an air conditioning system for the library and allocate payment for a
judgment,
AND WHEREAS, the non departmental revenue for interest income, licensing, and transfer from
Library Donations is less than anticipated,
AND WHEREAS, the building permits were less than anticipated,
AND WHEREAS, the Library coffee shop funded by donations was less than anticipated,
AND WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has been awarded the Safe Routes to School,
AND WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has received a donation and a loan to complete the Larson
Ice Arena improvement project,
AND WHEREAS, there was a change order on a fire truck and the removal of copulas from the roof
of the Swiftel Center was a necessary repair and the railroad crossing improvement was less than
anticipated,
AND WHEREAS, land was purchased for the development of storm drainage project #1,
AND WHEREAS, tax increment district 3 and 4 have received revenues and development has begun,
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 #2
Revenue
Expense
Other-Non-Dept, Gen Gov Buildings, IT (72,244)8
Public Safety-Police, Fire, Animal Control 8,397 12,904
Public Works-Engineer, Street (7,500)(27,354)
Culture-Park, Recreation, & Library 485,000 436,885
Community Development 21,290 12,500
Total General Government 434,943 434,943
25% Sales & Use Tax 15,180
Public Improvement (11,156)
Swiftel Center 13,653 13,653
Library Donations (48,115)
Special Assessment (176,500)19,584
Storm Drainage 180,675
Total Special Revenue Funds (147,667)154,641
TIF#1 Debt Service 24,218
TIF#2 Debt Service 1,822
Total Tax Increment Debt Service 26,040
Streetscape 335,989 95,474
TIF#3 Valley View 1,035,000 1,035,000
TIF#4 Sieler Addition 440,000 440,000
Total Capital Projects 1,810,989 1,570,474
ALL ORDINANCES or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: October 27, 2009
SECOND READING: November 17, 2009
PUBLISHED: November 20, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Page 1 of 4General Ledger Budget to Actual Period 01 ‐ 10 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009Account Number Description Budget Budget Adjustments Amended Budget Credits Debits Avail/Uncollect Amend Oct101 General Government 101‐000‐4‐111‐07 Mobile Home Taxes 2,100.00 0 2,100.00 16,218.38 201.25‐13,917.13 13,920.00101‐000‐4‐111‐09 Bank Franchise Taxes 66,000.00 0 66,000.00 72,499.80 0‐6,499.80‐6,500.00101‐000‐4‐221‐07 Licenses/Resturant Liquor 18,500.00 0 18,500.00 0 0 18,500.00‐18,500.00101‐000‐4‐338‐03 County/Wheel Tax 17,000.00 0 17,000.00 43,951.90 0‐26,951.90 26,951.00101‐000‐4‐661‐00 Interest Income 120,000.00 0 120,000.00 34,500.72 593.02 86,092.30‐40,000.00101‐000‐6‐700‐00 Transfer in From Library 0 80,000.00 80,000.00 0 0 80,000.00‐48,115.00000 General 223,600.00 80,000.00303,600.00 167,170.80 794.27 137,223.47‐72,244.00101‐405‐5‐422‐03 Consulting/Engineering 25,000.00 0 25,000.00 4,546.28 2,564.85 23,018.57‐15,000.00101‐405‐5‐429‐09 Miscellanous‐Judgement 0.00 0 0 0.00 50,007.78 50,007.78 50,008.00101‐405‐5‐856‐65 Public Relations 20,000.00 0 20,000.00 0 0 20,000.00‐20,000.00101‐405‐5‐856‐96 Matching Grant Expense 15,000.00 0 15,000.00 0 0 15,000.00‐15,000.00101‐405‐5‐856‐99 Contingency Fund 40,000.00 46,144.00 86,144.00 0 0.00 86,144.00‐85,906.00405 Non‐Departmental 100,000.00 46,144.00146,144.00 4,546.28 52,572.63 194,170.35‐85,898.00101‐417‐5‐920‐00 Furniture & Equipment 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 0 87,985.40 90,985.40 85,906.00417 Government Buildings 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.000.00 87,985.40 90,985.40 85,906.00101‐418‐4‐221‐06 Housing Licenses 8,500.00 0 8,500.00 17,015.00 0‐8,515.00 8,500.00101‐418‐4‐223‐01SignPermits0.00002,790.000‐2,790.002,790.00101‐418‐4‐223‐01Sign Permits0.00002,790.000‐2,790.002,790.00101‐418‐4‐334‐10 Grants Federal 0.00 0 0 2,198.70 0‐2,198.70 10,000.00418 Community Development 8,500.00 0.00 8,500.00 22,003.70 0.00‐13,503.70 21,290.00101‐418‐5‐425‐02 Maintenance Motor Vehicles 0.00 500 500 0 938.3‐438.30 1,000.00101‐418‐5‐428‐01 Telephone 2,520.00 0 2,520.00 0 2,700.13‐180.13 500.00101‐418‐5‐428‐02 Electric and Water 0.00 200 200 0 662.95‐462.95 1,000.00101‐418‐5‐441‐04 Safe Routes to School 0.00 0 0 0 2,443.00‐2,443.00 10,000.00418 Community Development 19,520.00 700.00 20,220.00 44,007.40 6,744.38‐30,531.78 12,500.00101‐419‐4‐223‐01 Building Permits/Engineer Fees 154,700.00 0 154,700.00 113,377.80 473 267,604.80‐7,500.00419 Engineering 154,700.00 0.00154,700.00 113,377.80 473.00 267,604.80‐7,500.00101‐421‐4‐334‐09 Grants 20,000.00 0 20,000.00 21,586.06 180.56‐1,405.50 1,400.00101‐421‐4‐446‐10 Donations 0.00 0 0 1,000.00 0‐1,000.00 1,000.00101‐421‐4‐446‐11 Dare Donations 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 4,940.23 0‐1,940.23 1,940.00421 Police Services 23,000.00 0.0023,000.00 27,526.29 180.56‐4,345.73 4,340.00
Page 2 of 4General Ledger Budget to Actual Period 01 ‐ 10 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009Account Number Description Budget Budget Adjustments Amended Budget Credits Debits Avail/Uncollect Amend Oct101‐421‐5‐101‐00 Regular Pay 1,482,818.00 6,000.00 1,488,818.00 5,148.50 1,098,709.56 395,256.94‐15,000.00101‐421‐5‐422‐09 Testing Services 1,500.00 0 1,500.00 0 5,738.90‐4,238.90 5,000.00101‐421‐5‐426‐01 Office Supplies 8,000.00 0 8,000.000 6,105.72 1,894.28 9,000.00101‐421‐5‐429‐10 Dare Expenditures 3,000.00 0 3,000.00 0 3,642.95‐642.95 1,297.00101‐421‐5‐950‐01 Capital less than $5,000 10,210.00 0 10,210.00 0 18,295.64‐8,085.64 8,100.00421 Police Services 1,505,528.00 6,000.00 1,511,528.00 5,148.50 1,132,492.77 384,183.73 8,397.00101‐422‐4‐335‐06 Fire Insurance Premium 47,000.00 0 47,000.00 51,057.23 0‐4,057.23 4,057.00422 Fire Protection Services 47,000.00 0.0047,000.00 51,057.23 0.00‐4,057.23 4,057.00101‐422‐5‐121‐10 Retirement/Volunteer Firemen 92,000.00 0 92,000.00 0 96,057.23‐4,057.23 4,057.00422 Fire Protection Services 92,000.00 0.0092,000.00 0.00 96,057.23‐4,057.23 4,057.00101‐426‐5‐428‐08 Sirens 1,700.00 0 1,700.00 0 2,130.79‐430.79 450.00426 Emergency/Disaster 1,700.00 0.00 1,700.00 0.00 2,130.79‐430.79 450.00101‐431‐5‐930‐00 Machinery & Auto Equipment 249,419.00 0 249,419.00 0 214,697.97 34,721.03‐27,354.00431 Street 249,419.00 0.00 249,419.00 0.00 214,697.97 34,721.03‐27,354.00101‐452‐4‐446‐10 Donations 250,000.00 160,000.00 410,000.00 20,495.00 0 430,495.00 333,350.00101‐452‐4‐692‐00 Other Financing Sources 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 151,650.00452 Parks 250,000.00 160,000.00 410,000.00 20,495.00 0.00 430,495.00 485,000.00101‐452‐5‐911‐00Building&Structures590,000.00150,000.00740,000.000899,454.07‐159,454.07485,000.00101‐452‐5‐911‐00Building & Structures590,000.00150,000.00740,000.000899,454.07‐159,454.07485,000.00452 Parks 590,000.00 150,000.00 740,000.00 0.00 899,454.07‐159,454.07 485,000.00101‐455‐5‐911‐00 Building & Structures 0.00 80,000.0080,000.00 0 31,885.60 48,114.40‐48,115.00455 Library 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 31,885.60 48,114.40‐48,115.00101 General Government 1,854,367.00 42,844.00 1,897,211.00‐347,928.64 2,522,573.01‐255,715.57 0.00
Page 3 of 4General Ledger Budget to Actual Period 01 ‐ 10 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009Account Number Description Budget Budget Adjustments Amended Budget Credits Debits Avail/Uncollect Amend Oct 212‐000‐4‐342‐99 Misc/Change Order Fire Trucks 0.00 0 0 15,180.00 0 15,180.00 15,180.00212 25% Sales & Use Tax/ord 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,180.00 0.00 15,180.00 15,180.00 213‐000‐5‐940‐00 Other Capital 40,000.00 0 40,000.00 0 15,190.81 24,809.19‐24,809.00213‐000‐7‐899‐03 Transfer out‐Swiftel CIP 70,000.00 33,970.00 103,970.000 21,720.87 82,249.13 13,653.00213 75% Public Improvemnts/ord 110,000.00 33,970.00 143,970.00 0.00 36,911.68 107,058.32‐11,156.00 224‐000‐6‐700‐04 Transfer in Sales & Use Tax 70,000.00 33,970.00 103,970.0021,720.87 0 82,249.13 13,653.00224 Swiftel Center 70,000.00 33,970.00 103,970.0021,720.87 0.00 82,249.13 13,653.00224‐000‐5‐940‐01 Capital 70,000.00 33,970.00 103,970.00 0 16,177.07 87,792.93 13,653.00224 Swiftel Center 70,000.00 33,970.00 103,970.000.00 16,177.07 87,792.93 13,653.00 227‐000‐7‐899‐00 Transfer out General Fund 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 0 0 80,000.00‐48,115.00227 Library Donations 0.00 80,000.0080,000.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00‐48,115.00 280‐000‐4‐663‐43 Special Assessment Deferred 41,000.00 0 41,000.00 15,559.14 415.52 25,856.38‐20,000.00280‐000‐4‐663‐45SpecialAssessmentCurrent235,000.00465,000.00700,000.0016,438.770683,561.23‐156,500.00280‐000‐4‐663‐45Special Assessment Current235,000.00465,000.00700,000.0016,438.770683,561.23‐156,500.00280 Special Assessment 276,000.00 465,000.00741,000.00 31,997.91 415.52 709,417.61‐176,500.00280‐000‐5‐960‐00 Street & Sidewalk Improvements 400,000.00 535,000.00 935,000.00 0 332,362.06 602,637.94‐265,000.00280‐000‐7‐899‐25 Transfer out to Streetscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 284,584.00280 Special Assessment 400,000.00 535,000.00 935,000.00 0.00 332,362.06 602,637.94 19,584.00 282 Storm Drainage 282‐000‐5‐910‐00 Land 126,000.00 0 126,000.00 0 0 126,000.00 180,675.00282 Storm Drainage 126,000.00 0.00 126,000.00 0.00 0.00 126,000.00 180,675.00 314‐000‐4‐111‐04 Current TIF Taxes 0 0 0 12,109.16 0 12,109.16 24,218.00314 TIF Dist #1 Debt Serv/Innov 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,109.16 0.00 12,109.16 24,218.00 315‐000‐4‐111‐04 Current TIF Taxes 0 0 0 911.11 0 911.11 1,822.00
Page 4 of 4General Ledger Budget to Actual Period 01 ‐ 10 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009Account Number Description Budget Budget Adjustments Amended Budget Credits Debits Avail/Uncollect Amend Oct315 TIF Dist #2/ Debt Serv/Weise 0.00 0.00 0.00 911.11 0.00 911.11 1,822.00 513‐000‐4‐446‐08 BMU/Reimbursed Expense 0 50,000.00 50,000.0010,573.24 0 39,426.76 47,405.00513‐000‐6‐700‐10 Transfer in Special Assessment 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 288,584.00513 Streetscape Project 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.0010,573.24 0.00 39,426.76 335,989.00513‐000‐5‐940‐00 Streets and Sidewalks 0 868,199.00 868,199.00 2,265.00 979,982.82‐109,518.82 95,474.00513 Streetscape Project 0.00 868,199.00868,199.00 2,265.00 979,982.82‐109,518.82 95,474.00 516 TIF Dist#3 Project/Valley View 516‐000‐4‐653‐50 Proceeds from Debt 0 0 0 242,961.39 124,097.08 118,864.31‐1,035,000.00516 TIF Dist#3 Project/Valley View 0 0.00 0.00 242,961.39 124,097.08 118,864.31‐1,035,000.00516‐000‐5‐429‐09 Other Project Expenses 0 0 0 117,097.08 164,884.77‐47,787.69 200,000.00516‐000‐5‐433‐01 Project Construction 0 0 0 0 28,055.53‐28,055.53 835,000.00516 TIF Dist#3 Project/Valley View 0.00 0.00 0.00 117,097.08 192,940.30‐75,843.22 1,035,000.00 517‐000‐4‐653‐50 Proceeds from Debt 0 0 0 269,745.30 0 269,745.30‐440,000.00517 TIF Dist #4 Project/Sieler 0.00 0.000.00 269,745.30 0.00 269,745.30‐440,000.00517‐000‐5‐429‐09OtherProjectExpense00049,660.5492,427.40‐42,766.8650,000.00517‐000‐5‐429‐09Other Project Expense00049,660.5492,427.40‐42,766.8650,000.00517‐000‐5‐433‐01 Project Construction 0 0 0 2,500.00 229,478.44‐226,978.44 390,000.00517 TIF Dist #4 Project/Sieler 0.00 0.00 0.00 52,160.54 321,905.84‐269,745.30 440,000.00
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
118
November 9, 2009
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Budget adjustment
Budget Amendment #1/Ordinance No. 06-09 failed to recognize the revenue created by the
transfer from the Public Improvement Fund to the Swiftel Fund of $33,970.
Ordinance No. 27-09 would be amended to read revenue of $47,623.
Swiftel Center $47,623 $13,653
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
121
Second Readings/Public Hearings
10. Ordinance No. 28-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to off-street
parking requirements for a two-family dwelling for the purposes
of administration of the Zoning Ordinance.
Proposal: Create additional on-premise parking requirements for two-family dwellings.
Background: A two-family dwelling is required to have at least two parking spaces for
each dwelling unit. This number has remained unchanged since 1987. These spaces may
be in tandem or side-by-side.
Specifics: The change will require additional on-premise parking whenever a dwelling
unit contains 3 or more bedrooms. Therefore, a newly established two-family dwelling
could be required to have 4, 5 or 6 on-premise parking spaces depending upon the
number of total bedrooms.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the amendment.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
122
Ordinance No. 28-09
An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to off-
street parking requirements for a two-family dwelling for the purposes of administration of the
zoning ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota: that Division 4.
Parking, Stacking and Loading, of Article VI of Chapter 94 shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Sec. 94-433. Off Street Parking Requirements
(c).1. Single-family dwelling, condominium or townhouse: Two (2) spaces for each dwelling
unit. Each garage stall shall be considered one parking space.
(c).1.a. Two-family dwelling: Two (2) spaces for each dwelling unit and one (1) additional
space for each dwelling unit with 3 or more bedrooms. Each garage stall shall be
considered one parking space.
Section 2. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: October 27, 2009
SECOND READING: November 17, 2009
PUBLISHED: November 20, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
___________________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
123
Memorandum
To: Jeff Weldon, City Manager, Shari Thornes, City Clerk
From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney
Date: November 12, 2009
Re: Off-street parking law/research
I have completed several hours of research on the topic of whether imposing additional off-
street parking requirements would constitute a “taking” or “inverse condemnation” of property
subject to such additional or new regulations. More research is needed for the reason that
“takings” cases involve a multitude of land use regulations and if there are such cases involving
off-street parking they are rare and need to be located. There is one comment which is helpful
and needs to be fortified with further research: That the right to regulate off street parking is
an exercise of municipal police power. This principle, if it can be documented as applicable in
South Dakota, would allow a municipality to regulate off-street parking without inverse
condemnation or takings concerns because such regulation is considered a valid exercise of
police powers, thereby being necessary for the welfare or safety of the community. The
standard for a citizen to claim damages because of a valid exercise of police power might be
nearly impossible to overcome. This proposition needs further research so we can document
and defend on the legal basis that such regulation is a valid exercise of a police power.
There is a fairly recent South Dakota Supreme Court case on the subject of takings, which is
excerpted below and provides the legal standards. The case name is Krier v. Dell Rapids
Township, a 2006 decision.
I will be out of town at the Municipal Attorneys Annual Meeting but will continue to research
this topic and may come up with more material during the conference.
The Krier case is excerpted below:
2. Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Township
on Krier’s inverse condemnation claim.
[¶21] Krier brought his inverse condemnation claim under Article VI, section 13 of our
State Constitution, which provides: “Private property shall not be taken for public use, or
damaged, without just compensation which will be determined according to legal procedure
established by the Legislature and according to § 6 of this article.” Article VI, section 13 of our
Constitution differs from the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution in two key respects.
First, and although not relevant to the present issue, we impose “public use” requirements that
are more strict than the federal baseline. Benson v. State, 2006 SD 8, ¶42, 710 NW2d 131 (citing
Steven J. Britzman
Brookings City Attorney
521 Sixth Street, Suite 104 Telephone (605) 697-9058
Brookings, South Dakota 57006 Facsimile (605) 697-9060
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
124
Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. E. Sioux Falls Quarry, 33 SD 63, 144 NW 724 (1913) (adopting the “use by
the public” test)). Second, our Constitution requires that the government compensate a
property owner not only when a taking has occurred, but also when private property has been
“damaged.” The Federal Constitution does not contain a “damage” clause. Compare SD Const
art VI, § 3 with US Const amend 5.
[¶22] Under the Federal Constitution, a plaintiff must assert one of four types of
takings: (1) a per se physical taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458
US 419, 102 SCt 3164, 73 LEd2d 868 (1982); (2) a per se regulatory taking which deprives a
landowner of all economically viable use of his property pursuant to Lucas v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 1014, 112 SCt 2886, 2895, 120 LEd2d 798 (1992); (3) a regulatory
taking under Penn Central Transportation Co., v. City of New York, 438 US 104, 98 SCt 2646, 57
LEd2d 641 (1978); or (4) a land-use exaction violating the standards set forth in Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825, 831-32, 107 SCt 3141, 3147-49, 97 LEd2d 677
(1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374, 384, 114 SCt 2309, ___, 129 LEd2d 304 (1994).
Benson, 2006 SD 8, ¶41, 710 NW2d at ___ (citing Lingle v. Chevron USA Inc., ___ US ___, 125
SCt 2074, 2087, 161 LEd2d 876 (2005)).
[¶23] Our case law provides that the “damage” clause in our State Constitution affords
more rights to our citizens than the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Searle v. City
of Lead examined the history of the damage clause:
The constitutional provision is unquestionably a wise and just one, and well calculated to
protect property owners from injustice and wrong on the part of municipal or other
corporations or individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use,
and should be given a liberal construction by the courts, in order to make it effectual in the
protection of the rights of the citizen. The words “or damaged” were, without doubt, added to
the usual provisions contained in earlier constitutions for the purpose of extending the remedy
to incidental or consequential injuries to property, not actually taken for public use, in the
ordinary acceptation of that term[.]
10 SD 312, 317-18, 73 NW 101, 103 (1897). Thus, the South Dakota Constitution provides
an additional theory by which a plaintiff may bring a claim for damages against the state.{fn4} In
State Highway Commission v. Bloom, we noted that:
Under the taking and damaging clause of our constitution … it is a basic rule of this
jurisdiction governing compensation for consequential damages that where no part of an
owner’s land is taken but because of the taking and use of other property so located as to cause
damage to an owner’s land, such damage is compensable if the consequential injury is peculiar to
the owner’s land and not of a kind suffered by the public as a whole.
77 SD 452, 461, 93 NW2d 572, 577 (1958). We further noted that “[t]his rule has been
applied in a number of South Dakota cases involving a change of street grade to the damage of
abutting property not physically invaded.” Id. (citing Searle, 10 SD 312, 73 NW 101; Whittaker v.
City of Deadwood, 12 SD 608, 82 NW 202 (1900)).
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
125
[¶24] In Hurley v. State, we recognized that the consequential damages rule extends
beyond the change of street grade cases. 82 SD 156, 161-62, 143 NW2d 722, 725 (1966).
Specifically, we held that under the damage clause “a landowner may claim compensation for the
destruction or disturbance of easements of light and air, and of accessibility, or of such other
intangible rights as he enjoys in connection with and as incidental to the ownership of the land
itself.” Id. at 161, 143 NW2d at 725 (citation omitted). Hurley involved the state’s creation of a
barrier that impaired the plaintiff’s right of access to a road abutting their property. Id. at 159,
143 NW2d at 724. Ultimately, the state was required to compensate the plaintiffs for the
obstruction. Id. at 164, 143 NW2d at 726.
[¶25] Our precedent involving the damage clause is not entirely consistent. In Hyde v.
Minnesota D. & P. Railway Co., the Court stated that the words “or damaged” did not broaden
the effect of our constitutional provision over what it would have been had the word “taken”
been used alone. 29 SD 220, 228-29, 136 NW 92, 96 (1912). Hyde held that the damages clause
did not extend the right of recovery “to include that for any injury for which damages could not
have been recovered at common law.” Id. Hyde is a two-to-one plurality opinion that is nearly
one hundred years old. It has been impliedly overruled by both Bloom and Hurley. To the extent
that Hyde conflicts with Bloom, Hurley, and the plain language of Article VI, section 13, it is
expressly overruled.
[¶26] A plaintiff can recover under the consequential damages rule if he or she can
prove “the consequential injury is peculiar to [their] land and not of a kind suffered by the
public as a whole.” Bloom, 77 SD at 461, 93 NW2d at 577; see also Hurley, 82 SD at 162, 143
NW2d at 725. The injury to the plaintiff “must be different in kind and not merely in degree
from that experienced by the general public.” Hurley, 82 SD at 162, 143 NW2d at 726 (citing
Hendrickson v. State, 267 Minn 436, 127 NW2d 165 (1964)).
[¶27] Krier brought this action under the consequential damages theory. He does not
argue that the Township changed the grade of Garfield Avenue, or that it blocked his right of
access to Garfield Avenue or hisproperty. Indeed, the Township, through its repair of the road
and removal of the gate, has actually increased access to Krier’s property from the south. Krier’s
argument is that the dust and gravel from Garfield Avenue continually invades his property and
has diminished its value.
[¶28] Krier does not claim the injury to his property is unique from that suffered by
other landowners, except that he built his home prior to the resurfacing of Garfield Avenue,
whereas the other homes were built afterwards. Thus, Krier contends that only his property has
diminished in value as a result of the resurfacing. Krier is confusing the damages resulting from
the injury with the injury. The injury to Krier’s property is the same as the injury to the other
properties. It differs only in amount or degree. The fact that a plaintiff suffers a higher degree of
injury or damages will not entitle him to recovery under the consequential damages rule.{fn5}
Hurley, 82 SD at 163, 143 NW2d at 726. Krier has failed to produce any evidence of a separate
and distinct injury and, as a result, has made no showing the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment for the Township.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
127
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 6, 2009
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Acting Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on October 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall.
Members present were Wayne Avery, Alan Gregg, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, and Fargen.
Stacey Howlett, Larry Fjeldos, Dave Kurtz and Al Heuton were absent. Also present were
Connie McKnight, Barb Lindsey, Ardis Johnson, Beverly Dobbs, City Manager Jeff Weldon, City
Engineer Jackie Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck, Planning and Zoning
Administrator Dan Hanson and others.
Item #7 – The City of Brookings has submitted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to Off-street parking requirements for a two-family dwelling.
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve the amendment. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #7 – Hanson remarked that the proposed ordinance would link units and bedrooms to
required parking spaces for a duplex much like the current requirements do for apartments.
Connie McKnight, a resident, asked if the regulations pertained to existing duplexes that
wanted to add a bedroom. Hanson responded yes. Barb Lindey, a resident, was concerned
about cars parked on the street. She felt it could be difficult to use the street for emergency
vehicles. Hanson noted that on-street parking issues needed to be brought to the attention of
other city departments.
Ardis Johnson, a resident, felt that landlords should provide adequate parking on their
property for the tenant’s vehicles. Mason Wheeler, a resident, felt the city had a parking
problem in areas where there were a lot of duplexes.
City Engineer Jackie Lanning remarked that restricting on-street parking may not reduce
the number of cars that use the street for parking. Beverly Dobbs, a resident, felt the
regulations could be applied retroactively to existing duplexes.
Fargen stated that the ordinance was a step in the right direction. Cameron felt that the
loss of green space and minimum lot area regulations for duplexes may need to be reviewed in
the future. Alan Gregg concurred with Cameron. He felt parking on one side of the street only
could be an option.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
128
PARKING REGULATION HISTORY
(residential uses)
DATE/ORD. USE/CHANGE SPACES/UNIT
1957/ No. 317 1 & 2 family dwellings 1
Multi-family (3 or more units) 1
1966/ No. 520 1 & 2 family dwellings 1
Multi-family (3 or more units) 1 ½
Boardinghouses 1/tenant
Parking prohibited in minimum
front yard setback area of lot
1968/ No. 558 Off-street parking required to
be on same lot as use
1974/ No. 1-74 Multi-family (3 or more units) 2
1980/ No. 22-80 Parking prohibited in minimum
front yard setback or building
setback line, whichever is greater
1987/ No. 9-87 1 & 2 family dwellings 2
Multi-family (3 or more units) 2-exclusive
of garages
1994/ No. 8-94 1 & 2 family dwellings, town- 2
houses and condominiums
Apartments (3 units or more) 2-plus one space
for each bedroom
in excess of one
bedroom, exclusive
of garages
______________________________________________________________________
PARKING REGULATIONS IN PUBLIC R.O.W. (non-zoning)
Sec. 82-428. (7) – Parking is prohibited upon any boulevard except when a special boulevard
parking permit is granted pursuant to policies and procedures established by the City Council.
Sec. 82-432. – Parking of vehicles, trailers or implements on any street or avenue, in excess of
72 hours, is prohibited
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
129
Second Readings/Public Hearings
11. Ordinance No. 29-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to Emergency
Services as a permitted use in certain business and industrial
districts for the purposes of administration of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Proposal: Create a new use and definition for emergency services that would include
temporary living quarters in a non-residential district.
Specifics: An emergency service such as a firehouse, ambulance service or similar use
has been covered under the “governmental administration” use category. This use is a
permitted special use in most residential districts.
This ordinance would expand the use into a few business and industrial districts where
an existing facility could be retrofitted to accommodate a mixed use. This could be an
option for an ambulance service if it was not housed on the same grounds as a hospital.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the amendment
City Manager Introduction
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
130
Ordinance No. 29-09
An ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to
Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business and industrial districts for the
purposes of administration of the zoning ordinance
Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Brookings, State of South Dakota: that Article I.
Definitions and Article IV. District Regulations of Chapter 94 shall be amended as follows:
Section 1.
Sec. 94-1. Definitions
Emergency Services: A building or use where equipment and vehicles are kept for
the purpose of immediate response to local emergencies. This term may also
include temporary living quarters within the building for emergency response
personnel who are on active duty.
Sec. 94-134. Business B-3 Heavy District
(c) Permitted Uses
20. Emergency Services
Sec. 94-136. Industrial I-1 Light District
(c) Permitted Uses
17. Emergency Services
Sec. 94-162. Industrial I-2 Heavy District
(c) Permitted Uses
18. Emergency Services
Section 2. Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: October 27, 2009
SECOND READING: November 17, 2009
PUBLISHED: November 20, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
___________________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
132
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 6, 2009
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Acting Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on October 6, 2009 at 8:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall.
Members present were Wayne Avery, Alan Gregg, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, and Fargen.
Stacey Howlett, Larry Fjeldos, Dave Kurtz and Al Heuton were absent. Also present were
Connie McKnight, Barb Lindsey, Ardis Johnson, Beverly Dobbs, City Manager Jeff Weldon, City
Engineer Jackie Lanning, Community Development Director Mike Struck, Planning and Zoning
Administrator Dan Hanson and others.
Item #6- The City of Brookings has submitted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business and industrial districts.
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve the amendment. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #6- Hanson stated the draft ordinance would allow emergency services to locate in
certain business and industrial districts. Currently, the only emergency services are affiliated
with governmental functions in residential zones, but that could change. Hanson felt the
operation of this type of use could be compatible with other uses in the proposed districts.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
133
Sec. 94-134. BUSINESS B-3 HEAVY DISTRICT.
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for a wide variety of retail services. This district will include
commercial uses requiring large land areas, extensive retail operations, and outdoor display of merchandise.
Inventory and material storage shall be screened.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title,
when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Business B-3 Heavy District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Retail or service store
2. Personal service store
3. Hotel
4. Financial institution
5. Public transportation facility
6. Public utility facility
7. Parking facility or lot
8. Grocery supermarket
9. Drive-in food service
10. Gas dispensing station
11. Animal hospital
12. Car wash
13. Indoor or outdoor recreational facility
14. Temporary storage facility
15. Automobile sales
16. Office
17. Seasonal roadside stand
18. Drinking Establishment
19. Telecommunications Towers
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with the conditions prescribed herein:
1. Outdoor sales
a. Used parts and other material storage shall be screened from adjoining property.
2. Wholesale trade with warehousing and storage
a. All inventory shall be stored within a completely enclosed building.
3. Lumberyard
a. The lumber storage area shall be at the rear of the building and screened from any arterial
street or residential district.
b. Seasonal outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
4. Nursery or greenhouse
a. Any land used to grow flowers, shrubs or trees shall not be located within 100 feet of an
arterial street.
5. Reverse vending machine
a. A trash receptacle shall be provided on-site.
6. Automobile service station
a. No fuel delivery pump shall be located within twenty feet (20') of any side lot line or right-of-
way line. No fuel pump shall be located within fifty feet (50') of the side or rear lot line
abutting a residential district.
b. All repair work shall be done within a completely enclosed building.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
134
c. All used automobile parts and dismantled vehicles shall be screened from adjacent property.
7. Citizen's drop-off for recyclables
a. No container shall be located within 100 feet of a residential district.
8. Motor vehicle repair shop
a. All repair work shall be done within a completely enclosed building.
b. All used automobile parts and dismantled vehicles shall be screened from adjacent property.
9. Motel
a. A minimum lot area of 1,000 square feet shall be provided for each sleeping room or suite.
10. Equipment rental store
a. An on-premise pickup and drop-off area shall be provided
b. Outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
11. Auction house
a. An on-premise pickup and drop-off area shall be provided
b. Outdoor displays shall not reduce the number of parking spaces on the lot below the
minimum requirements.
12. Semi-trailer storage
a. Storage shall not be permitted in the minimum front yard setback.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Assembling and packaging
2. Freight handling
3. Manufacturing, light
4. Mixed business/residential use
5. Contractors shop and storage yard
6. Buy back center for recyclables
7. Household hazardous waste site
8. Light processing facility
9. Transfer site for recyclables
10. Day care facility
11. Kennel
12. Truck and trailer rentals
13. Farm Implement Sales
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The B-3 district regulations shall be as follows:
Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
All Uses - - 20' -* 20'* 45'
*A fifty foot (50') landscaped area shall be required between an abutting residential district boundary line
and any structure, access drive, parking lot or other accessory use.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the B-3 District are buildings and uses
customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
135
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the B-3 District shall be in conformance
with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter.
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the B-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth
in division 5 of article VI of this chapter.
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the B-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations
set forth in article II of this chapter.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
136
Sec. 94-136 INDUSTRIAL I-1 LIGHT DISTRICT
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for a number of light manufacturing, light processing,
warehousing and service uses. This district includes the supportive commercial uses for the industrial
businesses.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title,
when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Industrial I-1 Light District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Assembling and packaging
2. Freight handling
3. Manufacturing, light
4. Storage and warehousing
5. Processing, light
6. Parking facility or lot
7. Office
8. Truck stop
9. Automobile service station
10. Public utility facility
11. Reverse vending machine
12. Contractors shop and storage yard
13. Motor vehicle repair shop
14. Semi-trailer storage
15. Farm Implement Sales
16. Telecommunications Tower
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with conditions prescribed herein:
1. Day care facility
a. A four-foot (4') high transparent fence shall be constructed between the play area and the
street.
b. An off-street pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided.
2. Light processing facility for recyclables
a. All storage and processing areas shall have perimeter fencing on all sides.
3. Buy back center for recyclables
a. A list of the types of recyclable material to be collected shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any permit
4. Citizens drop-off facility for recyclables
a. Containers or bins shall be provided for all waste material.
b. No container shall be located within 100 feet of a residential district.
5. Household hazardous waste site
a. Such uses shall be within a completely enclosed building.
b. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of all applicable laws and ordinances.
6. Transfer site for recyclables
a. All storage areas shall have perimeter fencing on all sides.
b. A list of the types of recyclable material to be collected shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any permit.
7. Automobile storage yard
a. Impound area shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt or concrete.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
137
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Kennel
2. Broadcast Tower
3. Outdoor Sales
4. Concrete Plant
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The I-1 district regulations shall be as follows:
Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
All Uses 20' 20'* 20'* 50'
*A fifty foot (50') landscaped area shall be required between an abutting residential district boundary line
and any structure, access drive, parking lot or other accessory use.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the I-1 District are buildings and uses
customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the I-1 District shall be in conformance
with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the I-1 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in
division 5 of article VI of this chapter
(g) Other Regulations. Development within the I-1 District shall be in conformance with the regulations
set forth in article II of this chapter
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
138
Sec. 94-162. INDUSTRIAL I-2 HEAVY DISTRICT.
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for heavy industrial uses which may create a degree of
nuisance which may not be compatible with residential and light commercial uses. All uses in this district
shall comply with any state or local regulations regarding noise, emissions, dust, odor, glare, vibration or
heat when applicable.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title,
when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Industrial I-2 Heavy District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Assembling and packaging
2. Freight handling
3. Manufacturing, light
4. Storage and warehousing
5. Processing, light
6. Reverse vending machine
7. Parking facility or lot
8. Public utility facility
9. Truck stop
10. Automobile service station
11. Office
12. Contractors shop and storage yard
13. Motor vehicle repair shop
14. Semi-trailer storage
15. Farm Implement Sales
16. Telecommunications Tower
17. Concrete Plant
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with conditions prescribed herein:
1. Day care facility
a. A four-foot (4') high transparent fence shall be constructed between the play area and the
street.
b. An off-street pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided.
2. Buy back center for recyclables
a. A list of the types of recyclable material to be collected shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any permit
3. Citizens drop-off facility for recyclables
a. Containers or bins shall be provided for all waste material.
b. No container shall be located within 100 feet of a residential district.
4. Household hazardous waste site
a. Such uses shall be within a completely enclosed building.
b. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of all applicable laws and ordinances.
5. Transfer site for recyclables
a. All storage areas shall have perimeter fencing on all sides.
b. A list of the types of recyclable material to be collected shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any permit.
6. Light processing facility for recyclables
a. All storage and processing areas shall have perimeter fencing on all sides.
7. Automobile storage yard
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
139
a. Impound area shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt or concrete.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Manufacture of acid, cement, lime, gypsum, plaster of paris, asphalt, explosives, fertilizer,
glue, sizing, paper, paint, turpentine, yeast, oils, alcohol, bleach or ammonia
2. Refining of fat, grease, lard, tallow or petroleum
3. Processing of grain, forage, toxic material, hides or furs
4. Distillation of products
5. Junkyard
6. Stockyards/slaughtering of animals
7. Rendering
8. Smelting
9. Boilerworks
10. Tank farm
11. Grain terminal
12. Farm store/feed store
13. Crematorium
14. Personal Health Services
15. Kennel
16. Broadcast Tower
17. Outdoor Sales
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The I-2 district regulations shall be as follows:
Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
All Uses - - 40' 20'* 20'* 50'
*A fifty foot (50') landscaped area shall be required between an abutting residential district boundary line
and any structure, access drive, parking lot or other accessory use.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the I-2 District are buildings and uses
customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the I-2 District shall be in conformance
with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter.
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the I-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set forth in
division 5 of article VI of this chapter.
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the I-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations
set forth in article II of this chapter.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
140
Other Business
12. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No. 115-09, a Resolution
of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person (Lyle Johnson
– Nichols property).
The City purchased a parcel of property of approximately 92 acres located in Section
21-T110-R50, which is west of the current airport site. Approximately 48 acres of this
parcel is available for hay/pasture use and the City Council awarded the bid to Lyle
Johnson of Brookings at their October 13th, 2009 meeting for the bid of $60.00 per
acre. This will be a two year lease, beginning January 1, 2010 and expiring December
31, 2011. The Notice of Public Hearing with intent to lease to private person was
advertised one time ten days prior to the hearing as required by SDCL. This resolution
will allow the City to enter into a lease agreement with Lyle Johnson of Brookings, SD
for 2010 and 2011 for the amount of $60.00 per acre.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, motion to approve, roll call
City Manager Recommendation- Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
141
Resolution No. 115-09
Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person
Be It Resolved by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the
City of Brookings intends to enter into a Lease with Lyle Johnson for a period of two
(2) years, commencing January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2011, and pertaining to
the following described property:
The designated hay/pasture land, forth-eight (48) acres more or less, in Section 21,
T110N-R50W in the City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota.
The Lease will be an amount of Sixty Dollars and no Cents per acre ($60.00) for
hay/pasture land, payable first half on April 1 and the remaining half on November 1 of
each year.
Be It Further Noted, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on November
17, 2009 at 6:00 o’clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons were
given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
142
Other Business
13. Public Hearing and action on Resolution No. 116-09, a Resolution
of Intent to Lease Real Property (South Dakota Ag Experiment
Station – Airport).
The City has been leasing the hay land and farmland located at the Brookings Regional
Airport to South Dakota Foundation Seed for the past three years and the lease expires
on December 31, 2009. The lease of hay land and farmland at the airport provides
extra income for the City’s airport budget well as provides for weed control. The City
would like to lease hay land and farmland at the Brookings Regional Airport for a period
of one year to South Dakota Ag Experiment Station, which is an affiliate of SDSU.
In the past, the City requested bids for farming on a three year basis. The City then
held a public hearing for the adoption of a resolution of intent to lease real property to
a private person, which is required by state law. Steve Britzman has researched the
issue, and provided the SDCL references as follows:
9-12-5. Powers - Lease or transfer of property for public purposes.
Every municipality shall have power to lease or sell or give and convey any personal or real
property of the municipality or perform any work or render any services, to the state or any
public corporation thereof, to be used by such grantee for an authorized public purpose;
such lease or sale or gift and conveyance, or the performance of such work, to be authorized,
made or done on the terms and in the manner provided by resolution of the governing body.
Source:
9-12-5.1. Powers - Lease of property - Term and conditions.
Every municipality may lease its municipally-owned property. Any such lease shall be for a term
and upon the conditions provided by resolution of the governing body.
9-12-5.2. Powers - Lease to private person - Resolution - Notice - Hearing -
Authorization.
If the governing body decides to lease any municipally owned property to any private person for
a term exceeding one hundred twenty days and for an amount exceeding five hundred dollars
annual value it shall adopt a resolution of intent to enter into such lease and fix a time and
place for public hearing on the adoption of the resolution. Notice of the hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper once, at least ten days prior to the hearing. Following the
hearing the governing body may proceed to authorize the lease upon the terms and conditions
it determines.
According to Mr. Britzman, this lease is not required to be bid, due to the fact the entity
is a state entity, though it could be offered for bids if you so desired. Since “SD Ag
Experiment Station”, the proposed lessee, is not a “private person”, he concluded we
can lease without bidding provided it is not to a private person.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
143
South Dakota Ag Experiment Station proposes to lease this property at $40.00 per acre
for hay land and $72.00 per acre for crop land, which is the same rate in the lease for
South Dakota Foundation Seed. This lease will be a one year lease, which will allow for
the City to adjust the crop and hay land areas based on the results of the Wildlife
Assessment. The Notice of Public Hearing was advertised one time ten days prior to
the hearing. This resolution will allow the City to enter into a lease agreement with
South Dakota Ag Experiment Station for one year for the crop and hay land at the
Brookings Regional Airport.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, motion to approve, roll call
City Manager Recommendation- Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
144
Resolution No. 116-09
Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property
BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that
the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Lease with South Dakota Ag Station for a period
of one (1) year, commencing on January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010 and pertaining
to the following described property:
The designated hay land and farmland on the Brookings Regional Airport, two hundred
seventy-four (274) acres more or less in Sections 26, 27, and 35, T110N, R50W, in the City of
Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota.
The Lease will be an amount of Forty Dollars ($40.00) per acre for hay land and
Seventy-two Dollars ($72.00) per acre for crop land, payable first half on April 1 and the
remaining half on November 1. The City of Brookings may terminate this Lease at any time in
the event a parcel of the above described property is to be sold by the City of Brookings. If a
portion of the leased land is sold, the number of acres to be paid for will be adjusted at the unit
price per acre.
BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on
November 17, 2009 at 6:00 o’clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons
were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
145
Other Business
14. TABLED – Resolution No. 106-09, a Resolution authorizing
Change Order No. 4 (CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa
Valley, and Cumberland Court Project, Rounds Construction.
The 2008-09STI 02STA Rio Grande, Napa Valley and Cumberland Court Project entails
construction of water main, sanitary sewer main, storm sewer, grading, gravel and curb
and gutter for Valley View Phase I. This is a TIF project with Blair Hill Properties, Inc. as
the owner of the development. This project was bid in 2008 and is nearing completion.
The owners of the development have proposed to install concrete storm sewer instead
of the proposed HDPE storm sewer along the southern portion of the project and to
install HDPE drain tile in the back yard areas. This change order has been modified for
a total increase of $57,885.51 to the contract. The change to the drainage plan will be
verified by the City Engineering staff.
Before the October 27, 2009 Council meeting, it appeared that the total change order
increases were greater than the change order limit outlined in state law. SDCL Chapter
5-18-18.3 outlines change orders as follows:
SDCL Chapter 5-18-18.3. Certain change orders exempt from bids. Any amendment or change
order to an existing contract for construction, reconstruction, or remodeling of a public
improvement does not need to be bid if:
(1) The contract contains unit prices for the same type or class of work;
(2) The change or extra work is necessitated by circumstances related to soils, utilities, or
unknown conditions directly affecting the performance of the work that were not
reasonably foreseeable at the time the underlying contract was let and the change or
extra work is necessary to the completion of the public improvement; or
(3) The sum of the proposed amendment or change order plus the sum of all other prior
unbid amendments or change orders, exclusive of change orders issued under
subdivisions (1) and (2) of this section, does not exceed the following:
(a) For contracts not more than five hundred thousand dollars, the greater
of twenty-five thousand dollars or fifteen percent of the base contract;
(b) For contracts exceeding five hundred thousand dollars but not more
than two million five hundred thousand dollars, the greater of seventy-
five thousand dollars or ten percent of the base contract; and
(c) For contracts exceeding two million five hundred thousand dollars, the
greater of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or five percent of the base
contract.
Source: SL 1987, ch 58; SL 1988, ch 57; SL 2001, ch 29, § 1.
The contract amount for this project is $523,912.61 and under SDCL 5-18-18.3(a), the
change order limit for this project is the greater of 10% of the contract ($52,391.26) or
$75,000, which in this case would be $75,000 for this project. Since the meeting, SDSL
Section 5-18-18.3(1) has been reviewed by Steve Britzman, City Attorney. Since this
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
146
Section exempts the items that are included in the contract with unit prices for the
same type or class of work, these items could be excluded from the calculation of the
change order limit.
Change Order No. 4 includes 18” RCP storm sewer pipe, flared ends and granular
embedment in the amount of $39,433.15, and these items do have line item bid costs
included in the contract. Change Order No. 4 also includes drain tile pipe, drains and
grates in the amount of $18,452.36 that do not have bid item costs included in the
contract. The bid limit is calculated as follows:
Increase from Previously Approved Change Order 1, 2 & 3: $23,512.10
Increase from Change Order 4 (new items not under contract): $18,452.36
Total change order increases of new items not under contract: $41,964.46
The new change order total is under the bid limit of $75,000 and therefore allowable.
The total change order summary is as follows:
Original Contract Price: $523,912.61
Increase from Previously Approved Change Order 1, 2 & 3: $23,512.10
Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $547,424.71
Increase of this Change Order (No. 4): $57,885.51
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $605,310.22
This resolution will approve Change Order No. 4, authorizing the increase of $57,885.51
for the additional storm sewer for the project and will extend the final completion date
to December 15, 2009.
Staff Recommendation: Since the engineering staff has not received the revised drainage
plan, I recommend that this resolution be approved contingent upon an approved
drainage plan. This will allow the staff time to review the plan, and if it is acceptable,
construction may begin promptly on the work.
Motion to remove from Table
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
147
Resolution No.106-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 4(CCO#4) for 2008-09STI
Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project
Rounds Construction
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-
09STI Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project:
Construction Change Order Number 4
Adjust contract for additional HDPE storm sewer and rear yard area drains for an
increase of $57,885.51 to the contract.
Adjust the contract final completion date to December 15, 2009.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
148
Other Business
15. Action on Resolution No. 113-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final
Change Order (CCO#1 Final) for 2009-04STA Alley Assessment
Project (from 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue between 1st Street and
2nd Street), Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
The Brookings City Council approved Resolution of Necessity 50-09 on May 26th, 2009,
authorizing the City to proceed with bidding for an alley assessment project. This
project consists of grading, gravel and asphalt paving for an alley located between 11th
Avenue and 12th Avenue and 1st Street and 2nd Street. This project is an assessment
project with all of the project costs being assessed to the abutting property owners.
The contract for this alley is with Bowes Construction Inc., and the project was
completed before the contract completion date of October 15, 2009 and is ready to be
finalled out. The following is a summary of the final contract costs:
Original Contract Price: $26,699.50
Change from Previously Approved Change Orders: $0.00
Contract Price prior to this Change Order: $26,699.50
Decrease of this Change Order (No. 1 Final): $2,534.39
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $24,165.11
This resolution will final out the project for a decrease of $2,534.39 to the contract,
which is mainly due to slightly lower actual quantities than the bid quantities. After
adoption of this resolution, staff will proceed with the assessment process for this alley
project.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
149
Resolution No. 113-09
A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For
2009-04STA Alley Assessment Project
(from 11th Ave. to 12th Ave. between 1st St. and 2nd St.)
Bowes Construction Inc., Brookings, SD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-
04STA Alley Assessment Project:
Construction Change Order Number 1 Final
Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as build” quantities for a total decrease of $2,534.39.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
150
Other Business
16. Action on Resolution No. 114-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final
Change Order (CCO#2 Final) for 2009-02STA 15th Street South,
Camelot Drive, and Christine Avenue Street Assessment Project,
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD.
This project is a street assessment project that entails minor gravel shaping and asphalt
paving for 15th Street South, approximately 700’ east of Medary, Christine Avenue from
15th Street South to the north approximately 300’ and Camelot Drive from 15th Street
South to the north approximately 900’. These streets are located adjacent to the new
Camelot Intermediate School site. The City Council approved Resolution No. 27-09,
which authorized the City to proceed with this assessment project. The majority of the
project costs will be assessed and the City will also pay for the extra width and
thickness costs for 15th Street South, as well as an assessment cost for City frontage
abutting Camelot Drive.
This change order will adjust the bid quantities to final as-built quantities for a total
increase of $1,365.09 to the contract. The substantial completion date for this project
was July 1, 2009. However, this project was completed late because the 2008-02STA
project (utilities, grading, curb & gutter & gravel) was behind schedule due to the
wetland issue. This project was substantially completed on August 6, 2009. The
increase was primarily due to slightly more gravel and asphalt needed for the
intersection fillet work. Attached is a letter from Bowes Construction requesting a
time extension (not on letterhead).
The total change order is as follows:
Original Contract Price: $171,684.71
Decrease from Previously Approved Change Orders (No. 1): $1,486.64
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order: $170,198.07
Increase of this Change Order (No. 2 Final): $1,365.09
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: $171,563.16
This resolution will approve Change Order No. 2 (Final) for an increase of $1,365.09 to
the contract amount and it will adjust the completion date to August 6, 2009. After this
change order is approved, City staff will proceed with the assessment process for the
project.
City Manager recommendation: This project was could not proceed until the 2008
project was completed, which had been delayed in 2008 due to wetlands that were
discovered in the right of way of Camelot Drive. Bowes Construction began this project
promptly after the 2008 project was completed and the crews completed the project in
time for the streets to be paved before the fall school opening date. Due to the delays
outside the contractor’s control, I recommend approval without liquidated damages.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
151
Resolution No. 114-09
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 2 (CCO#2 Final) For
2009-02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive
Street Assessment Project
Bowes Construction Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-
02STA 15th Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Street Assessment
Project:
Construction Change Order Number 2 (Final)
Adjust the bid quantities to final as-built quantities for a total increase of
$1,365.09 to the contract.
Adjust contract substantial completion date to August 6, 2009.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
152
November 11, 2009
Jackie Lanning, PE
Brookings City Engineer
PO Box 270
Brookings, SD 57006
Re: 2009‐02STA Assessment Project
Dear Ms. Lanning:
I am writing to request an extension of the original time frame on the above‐referenced project. The
original completion date was July 1, 2009. Due to delays by the contractors who were working on this
site prior to us, we were not able to start our project until approximately 6 weeks later than expected.
Also, there was additional work added to the north end of Christine Ave. However, we were still able to
substantially complete the project within approximately one month from our start.
In addition, there was some discussion between the engineers and Bowes regarding the thickness of the
asphalt on the stub streets which led to some delay in finishing the punch list.
With these reasons in mind, we are asking that an extension be granted and no penalties assessed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Miranda Bowes Peterson
Corporate Secretary
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
153
Other Business
17. Action on Resolution No. 117-09, Creating Capital Reserves for
Governmental Funds.
This resolution creates capital reserves based on the availability of funds and per the five
year capital improvement plan adopted during the budget sessions for 2010. Attached is
a detailed report on both the historical cash balances and the historical fund balances.
The cash flow reserves does not need to be updated, Resolution No. 85-07 gives
authority to create cash flow reserves for emergencies up to 10% of the governmental
fund balances.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
154
Resolution No. 117-09
Creating Capital Reserves for Governmental Funds
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has established Governance Policies & Ends Policies,
which defines, protects, and prioritizes the workings of City Government,
AND WHEREAS, Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability, Guideline E requires a (5) five year
capital improvement plan,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.1 authorizes municipalities the
accumulation of funds for a period longer than one year for specific capital outlay purposes
otherwise authorized by law,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.2 states such resolution shall be
enacted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body stating clearly the purposes for which the
funds are to be accumulated and the maximum amount that may be accumulated,
AND WHEREAS, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.2 further states the funds
accumulated shall be expended within sixty months from the date of the resolution or if the
specific purposes for which the funds are accumulated are deemed no longer necessary, these
funds shall revert to the general fund,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following capital reserve funds be created
for these governmental funds per the (5) Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and the City
Manager with the approval of the Council be allowed to spend these funds when the need
arises:
FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Solid Waste Collection 2010 5 year capital improvement plan/Automated Truck 200,000
Solid Waste Disposal 2010 -5 year capital improvement plan/Loader 750,000
Solid Waste Disposal 2010- 5 year capital improvement plan/trench 5 200,000
General Fund Acquisition of Land 2,000,000
General Fund 2010- 5 year capital improvement plan/2011 CIP 771,950
75% Sales & Use Tax 2010- 5 year capital improvement plan/Streets & RR Crossing 2,720,000
25% Sales & Use Tax 2010- 5 year capital improvement plan/portion of 2011 CIP 1,000,000
All other resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November, 2009.
City of Brookings, SD
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
CITY OF BROOKINGS
2006 2007 2008 Nov-09 2009
Fund Cash Bal Cash Bal Cash Bal Cash Bal Proposed Reserves
General Government
General Fund 4,508,243 6,319,590 6,111,663 4,779,741
Cash on hand 3,007,161 1,627,625 4,919,698 592,376
Petty cash/change fund 1,082 927 927 927
Investments 1,500,000 3,500,000 0 2,995,400
Cashflow Reserves 1,191,038 1,191,038 1,191,038
Special Revenue Funds
Retail Development 326,104 326,104 317,254 316,365
Cash on hand 11,604 11,604 2,754 1,865
Investment/Restricted funds 314,500 314,500 314,500 314,500
25% Sales & Use Tax/ord 962,736 1,413,070 1,108,648 1,303,266
Cash on hand 962,736 261,154 956,732 1,151,350
Investments 1,000,000 0 0
Cashflow Reserves 151,916 151,916 151,916
75% Public Improvemnts/ord 4,536,610 5,753,970 5,504,692 7,441,156
Cash on hand 2,761,610 1,579,047 3,328,389 0
Investment/Restricted funds 1,775,000 1,775,000 1,380 1,380
Investment 2,000,000 5,264,853 2,293,923 (Restricted by outside sources-Debt Service)
Cashflow Reserves 399,923 2,174,923 2,174,923
Industrial Park 705,443 389,784 303,685 257,279
Cash on hand 262,228 176,129 129,723
Cashflow Reserves 127,556 127,556 127,556
Special Assessment 348,724 397,207 50,537 -254,005
Cash on hand 352,207 5,537 -299,005
Cashflow Reserves 45,000,45,000,45,000,
Storm Drainage 518,549 483,420 465,399 714,236
Cash on hand 433,717 415,696 664,533
Cashflow Reserves 49,703 49,703 49,703
3rd Penny Sales Tax 209,256 330,929 406,626 294,428
Cash on hand 268,229 343,926 231,728
Cashflow Reserves 62,700 62,700 62,700
Enterprise Funds
Liquor 418,821 538,271 547,045 303,036
Cash on hand 417,739 534,271 542,045 298,036
Petty cash/change fund 1,082 4,000 5,000 5,000
Airport 0 80,712 142,752 151,310
Solid Waste Collection 137,218 275,175 375,997 250,307
Depreciation 200,000 (2011 heavy eqp purch per 5 yr CIP)
Solid Waste Disposal 1,691,997 2,113,350 2,660,144 2,914,001 1,877,063
Cash on hand 448,853 623,509 907,831 1,786,688
Petty Cash 250 250 250 250
Restricted cash/closure, etc 884,741 999,891 1,127,063 1,127,063 1,127,063 (Restricted previous ord)
Debt Service 33,153 14,700 0 0
Depreciation 250,000 400,000 550,000 0 750,000 (2011 heavy eqp purch per 5 yr CIP)
Operation/Maintenance Reserve 75,000 75,000 75,000 0
Future trench 200,000
Research & Tech Center 37,733 30,605 51,591 109,133
2006 2007 2008 Nov-09
Fund Bal Fund Bal Fund Bal Fund Bal
General Government
General Fund 4,840,066 6,255,657 7,784,411 7,285,284
Fund Balance 4,777,977 5,832,803 2,705,190 4,563,795
Cafeteria Reserve 3,000 3,000 3,000 0
Inventory 59,089 64,002 65,605 42,102
SDPA 355,852 355,852 355,852
Innovation Campus/SDDOT 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 (Reserve purchase land)
CIP Reserve 650,025 314,525 771,950 (2011 CIP per 5 yr plan)
Dare Reserve 4,739 9,010
Special Revenue Funds
Retail Development 329,241 478,460 326,104 316,365
Fund Balance 326,104 326,104 316,365
Inventory Reserve 152,356
25% Sales & Use Tax/ord 815,463 1,122,911 1,562,710 1,212,412
Fund Balance 487,210 -932,962
CIP Reserve 1,075,500 2,145,374 1,000,000 (2011 CIP per 5 yr plan/878,777 short)
75% Public Improvemnts/ord 4,156,181 4,998,471 6,169,173 5,820,639
Fund Balance 2,381,181 3,223,471 3,244,173 2,400,639
Debt Service 1,775,000 1,775,000 1,775,000 1,775,000 1,894,000 (Restricted by outside sources)
CIP Reserve 1,150,000 1,645,000 2,720,000 (1,350,000 RR-1,370,000 new streets)
Industrial Park 871,101 1,678,182 1,552,641 2,469,271
Fund Balance 368,201 815,804 -372,928 156,495
Inventory Reserve 502,900 862,378 1,425,569 2,112,776
CIP Reserve 500,000 200,000
Special Assessment 251,643 348,724 396,897 30,051
Fund Balance 276,897 -89,949
CIP Reserve 120,000 120,000
Storm Drainage 489,996 518,206 315,511 464,413
Fund Balance -164,489 164,413
CIP Reserve 480,000 300,000
3rd Penny Sales Tax 282,831 274,383 417,793 467,383
Enterprise Funds
Liquor 1,037,721 1,419,551 1,253,133 1,418,258
Airport 2,158,869 3,094,794 3,485,380 3,659,039
Solid Waste Collection 385,106 609,316 678,672 715,134
Solid Waste Disposal 4,291,049 4,781,989 5,165,674 5,525,162
Retained Earnings 3,739,926 4,065,480 4,304,245 4,528,433
Reserve for Closure 325,912 358,356 371,729 371,729
Debt Service 50,211 33,153 14,700 0
Depreciation Reserve 100,000 250,000 400,000 550,000
Operating/Maintenance Res 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
Research & Tech Center 1,928,047 1,913,463 1,872,493 1,840,481
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
157
City of Brookings
Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability
Establishing what is to be done, for whom, at what cost, and
Executive Limitations to define unacceptable means
Financial Stability – Key Performance Area
Financial stability is considered a key performance area by the Brookings City Council, and appears
in the Mission Statement as “fiscally responsible municipal management.”
One of the duties of the City Manager is the development of a process that keeps the Council aware
of upcoming budgetary needs and requests, so that the Council may aid in the creation of ongoing
budget priorities. Good stewardship requires the Council to discern what is in the best interests of
the citizens, and budget accordingly.
Therefore, budgeting for any fiscal period or the remaining part of any fiscal period shall not deviate
materially from Council Policies as established in key performance areas, or other City Council
policies. The City Manager is therefore prohibited from budgeting or spending that:
3. Lowers the City’s bond rating;
4. Violates Federal, State, or Municipal laws; ethical standards; and generally accepted
accounting and budgeting principles.
In addition, the City Manager may not bypass Council judgment to allow budgeting that:
1. Allows expenditures to exceed revenues, including the contingency as an expenditure;
2. Increases the property tax rate;
3. Includes capital expenditures that have not been previously approved by the Council; in a
Capital Improvement Plan or other council action;
4. Causes the City to incur new debt;
5. Increases operating expenses (meaning personnel and capital excluded) in any department
beyond inflation using at least a rolling six month average of the Midwest Consumer Price
Index;
6. Provides for employee compensation and benefits that exceed market standards;
Guideline A:
With respect to budget preparations, the City Manager shall stay within the confines of what
constitutes a conservative perspective, as it is the Council’s intention to:
6. Make conservative revenue projections using the previous five-year average as a benchmark,
with an emphasis on the previous year actual and current year actual. Projections using
current data should not be made with less than 6 months rolling actual data.
7. Provide valuable citizen services;
8. Lighten the debt load of the City;
9. If a property tax rate is justified only because of state limitations, a special reserve will be
created.
10. The City has established the policy that financial, service and program performance
measures be developed and used as an important component of decision making and
incorporated into governmental budgeting. The City encourages all departments to utilize
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
158
performance measures. At a minimum, performance measures should be used to report on
the outputs of each program and should be related to the objectives of each department.
Performance measures should:
a. Be based on program objectives that tie to the City Council’s goals and
program mission or purpose;
b. Measure program results or accomplishments;
c. Provide for comparisons over time;
d. Measure efficiency and effectiveness;
e. Be reliable, verifiable and understandable;
f. Be reported internally and externally;
g. Be monitored and used in decision-making processes; and
h. Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can provide an
efficient and meaningful way to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key
programs.
Guideline B:
In addition, as the City Manager assumes his duties, the Council requests that the City Manager keep
information flowing to the Council, especially concerning plans relating to consolidation or
expansion of any City departments. Therefore, the City Manager may not consolidate or expand any
City Department without first informing the Council of the intended action.
Guideline C:
With respect to reserve funds the City Manager’s overall budgetary goal will be to present a budget
that allows for reasonable reserve creating options for the Council. The City Manager may not
bypass Council judgment to allow budgeting that:
2. Lowers the General Fund Reserve below a 3-month operational level:
a. The 3-month calculation shall be based upon General Fund expenditures, derived from the
previous year’s Audited Financial Statement. The reserve amount shall reflect the targeted
reserve amount, deficiencies below the targeted reserve amount and any discretionary funds
available above the targeted reserve amount.
c. General Fund reserves may be used at the Council’s discretion to address temporary cash-
flow shortages, emergencies unanticipated economic downturns, one-time opportunities and
capital needs related to buildings, structures and vehicles used specifically in the operation of
the General Fund. They provide flexibility to respond to unexpected opportunities that may
help the City achieve its goals.
The funds identified in “b” above may be used at the Council’s discretion to address temporary
cash flow shortages, emergencies, unanticipated economic downturns, and one-time
opportunities. They provide flexibility to respond to unexpected opportunities that may help the
City achieve its goals.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
159
2. Lowers the following funds below the following:
d. The Industrial Development fund – a cash flow reserve of 10% and a capital reserve of 90%
funded with revenue from the sale of industrial lands with a minimum of $500,000 in capital
reserve.
e. The Special Assessment fund – a reserve based on an annual analysis of current
development and future needs.
f. The Storm Drainage fund - a cash flow reserve of 20% of annual revenues and a capital
reserve based on the capital improvement plan with a minimum of 80% of annual revenues
from the previous year.
Council options for further reserves include:
a. Transfer to increase the reserve of another fund that is not at the established target;
b. To finance un-funded necessities of the previous year’s budget reductions;
c. To pay off debt with a portion of the reserve;
d. To finance the expansion of City services;
e. To offer property tax, or other tax relief.
Guideline D:
The use of one-time revenues will be guided by this policy. Examples of one-time revenues include:
infrequent sales of assets, bond refunding savings, infrequent revenues from development, and
grants. These revenues may be available for more than one year (a three-year grant), but are expected
to be non-recurring. Examples of expenditures for which the City may wish to use one-time
revenues include startup costs, stabilization (to cover expenditures that temporarily exceed
revenues), early debt retirement, and capital purchases.
The City Manager will not bypass Council judgment in making use of one-time revenue. In utilizing
one-time revenue, the City Manager will carefully analyze and minimize the need for ongoing
expenditures.
Guideline E:
Capital expenditures will be planned each year in a five-year capital improvement plan. The annual
budget will provide a separate accounting of capital expenditures in each department. The city
manager should plan major projects with an estimated expenditure and with sources of funding
identified. The general fund expenditures for furniture, equipment, and buildings is expected to
fluctuate, but an average of 10% of the total general fund expenditures is expected, this includes the
amount funded by the 25% 2nd Penny funds.
Guideline F:
Upon the City Council’s adoption of an annual budget and five year capital plan that is presented in
accordance with Guidelines A through E, the City Manager assumes responsibility for ensuring
compliance with the budget as an established City Council Policy. This includes expenditure
control, and program and service delivery within that budget.
Minor deviations are tolerable and encouraged to maintain cost control and deliver quality services.
Examples of minor deviations are variances of purchases and costs between line items in a budget,
changes in programs and services resulting in cost savings or without cost, the use of grants that do
not cause future costs, and the purchases of minor equipment. This list is not exhaustive.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
160
Major deviations require notification and sometimes-prior approval by the City Council. Examples
of major deviations include the use of the contingency fund, program eliminations or additions, the
use of cash instead of debt when debt was planned, changes in the capital improvement plan, and
change orders in capital projects. This list is not exhaustive.
To facilitate a budget that can respond to changing needs, the City Council will approve a
contingency fund for the City Manager to utilize at his/her discretion. Examples of uses for the City
Manager’s contingency fund include: unbudgeted training opportunities for staff; purchases of
software, hardware, and small equipment that was unbudgeted; one-time expenditures to fill a major
position vacancy; one-time expenditures requested by outside entities; and emergencies in general.
The Manager would be expected to make an effort to avoid utilizing the contingency.
The City Manager will report compliance or deviations from this Guideline for Financial Stability on
a quarterly basis.
Guideline G:
Budgets for Enterprise Funds will be prepared by the City Manager with a goal of providing quality
services and sustaining a maximum return to the General Fund on a long-term basis. A return on
assets (ROA) will be calculated on an annual basis.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
161
Other Business
18. Action on Resolution No. 118-09, accepting a Gift of Real
Property to the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Attached is a resolution accepting a parcel of property in Valley View Addition as a
future neighborhood park to service the Valley View, Esther Heights, and a future yet
unnamed subdivision west of Valley View. It is described as Lot 16, Block 2 Valley View
Addition on the attached plat map.
Upon your acceptance, the parcel will be legally transferred, inventoried and catalogued
into our Park Master Plan. It will be some time before we schedule improvements to
the park as nothing is budgeted for 2010.
Resolution No. 118-09
A Resolution Accepting a Gift of Real Property to the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Whereas, Blairhill Properties, Inc. desires to gift and convey real property to the City of
Brookings, South Dakota, to be used for public purposes and specifically to provide a
playground for the Valley View and Esther Heights neighborhoods and future adjacent
subdivisions, said real property being described as follows:
Lot Sixteen (16) in Block Two (2) of Valley View Addition,
City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South
Dakota, and
Whereas, the property is conveyed with the restriction that the property shall revert to
Blairhill Properties, Inc. if it ceases to be used by the public as a playground serving the
Valley View and Esther Heights neighborhoods, and future adjacent subdivisions, and
Whereas, the City Council recognizes the significant benefits the community will enjoy
as a result of the gift of this real property by BlairHill Properties, Inc.,
Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council that the real property
described above is gratefully accepted by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, subject
to the restriction set forth herein.
Passed and approved on the 17th day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST:
Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
162
Steven J. Britzman
Brookings City Attorney
521 Sixth Street, Suite 104 Telephone (605) 697-9058
Brookings, South Dakota 57006 Facsimile (605) 697-9060
____________________________________________________________
Memorandum
To: Jeff Weldon, City Manager, Shari Thornes, City Clerk, Allyn Frerichs, Director, Parks, Rec. &
Forestry
From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney
Date: November 12, 2009
Re: Valley View proposed gift of park land
I have set forth pertinent statutes concerning the acceptance of gifts for parks, including 9-
38-34 which requires a majority vote of the voters of the city to change the use of property
designated as park land. We can certainly accept a gift of land, but if the donor’s condition is
that it be used as a park, and we accept it as park land, then we cannot change that use without
a public vote. The last statute I have cited—9-38-34.1 clarifies that 9-38-34 in fact requires a
public vote if park land is changed to another use.
State Statutes
9-38-32. Parks and recreation - Acceptance of gifts for parks and boulevards -
Conditions permissible.
Real or personal property or the income thereof may be granted, bequeathed, devised,
or conveyed to the first or second class municipality for the purpose of parks, parkways, or
boulevards or for improvement or ornamentation of the same, or for the establishment or
maintenance in any park of zoological or other gardens or observatories, monuments or works
of art, or other park purposes, upon such trusts and conditions, including exemption from
payment of assessments, as may be prescribed by the grantors, donors, or devisors thereof and
agreed to by the governing body and board.
9-38-34. Parks and recreation - Change of use of lands authorized by election.
A change of use of such lands may be authorized by an affirmative majority vote of the
voters of said city voting at an election on the question of such change of use. Such question
may be submitted to the voters of such first or second class municipality at a regular annual or
special city election.
Source:
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
163
9-38-34.1. Parks and recreation - Private sale of park land occupied by encroaching
building prior to January 1, 1988 - Appraisal - Election exemption - Exchange of land - Sale as
administrative decision.
The governing body of a municipality may, by private sale, sell park land physically
occupied by an encroaching building and the park land around the building extending a distance
not to exceed ten feet from the foundation of the building provided the building was in
existence prior to January 1, 1988. Such park land may only be sold to the owner of the
encroaching building and may be sold without competitive bidding. The municipality shall have
such land appraised by one or more persons licensed by the state to do fee appraisals. The
municipality may not sell the property for less than the appraisal price. The change of the use of
such land need not be submitted to the voters of the municipality pursuant to § 9-38-34. If the
governing board of the first or second class municipality desires to exchange the land that it is
disposing of for other land owned by the person whose building encroaches on the park
property, the governing body may do so as long as the municipality has both properties
appraised and receives equivalent value in the form of land and cash for the park property
disposed of. The sale of property pursuant to this section is an administrative decision pursuant
to § 9-20-19.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
165
Other Business
19. Action to approve the Fixed Price Technical Services
Agreement; I-29 Corridor Study.
Date: November 2, 2009
To: City Council, City of Brookings
From: Al Heuton, Brookings Economic Development Corporation on behalf of the I-29
Region Economic Developers Task Force
The I-29 economic developer’s task force is pleased to announce Rural Technology
Strategies, Inc. (RTS) was selected by the task force as the preferred consultant to
conduct our I-29 corridor study. We appreciate the City of Brookings’ willingness to
serve as the contracting entity and fiscal agent for the project.
A summary of the RFP process, list of responding consultants, list of consultants
interviewed and reasons for selecting RTS is included for your review. A copy of the
paid and pledged I-29 partners is included for your review followed by a copy of the
scope of work for the selected consultant. Please note that if all pledges are honored
we will have funding left over which could be applied to an implementation project
based upon the outcome of the corridor study.
Contract Purpose
The purpose of the contract is to conduct an analysis of economic development
opportunities in the I-29 Corridor.
Request for Proposals (RFP) Process
1. The RFP was distributed to twenty-four consultants:
TechVision 21
Impresa
Milken Institute
ANGLE Technology LLC
Washington Advisory Group
Collaborative Economics
Council on Competitiveness
Advanced Research Technologies, LLC
Nexus Associates
GSP Consulting
Innovation Associates
Battelle Memorial Institute
Council for Community and Economic Research
Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness
Regional Technology Strategies, Inc.
Mt. Auburn Associates
RTI International
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
166
Rural Policy Research Institute
Praxis Strategy Group
SDSU Department of Economics
New Economy Strategies
Market Street Services
Wade Druin
DCG Consulting, Inc.
2. The RFP Scope of Work included:
A) Outcome 1 - An economic growth strategy encompassing the region’s
unique higher education resources and strengths, and the potential
application of those strengths to solve problems. Perceived study
components would include:
a. Identification of the University systems core competencies, the
opportunity for alignment with industry applications in both the private
and public sectors, and workforce resource opportunities presented by
the student population. Universities to be included are South Dakota
State University, University of South Dakota and Dakota State University.
b. A strategic action plan designed to take advantage of opportunities
represented by the university system, improve the economic asset, and
forge alliances and networks with the private sector.
B) Outcome 2 - An economic growth strategy building upon the I-29 region’s
existing and emerging economic base.
a. Identification of primary and emerging industry sectors and clusters
representing the region’s economy.
b. An evaluation of the ability of existing and emerging industry sectors and
clusters to support future economic growth.
c. A competitive analysis and benchmark the I-29 Corridor’s ability to
compete with other regions in building and recruiting industry sectors of
interest.
d. A strategic action plan designed to forge a cohesive regional effort to
grow existing and emerging industry sectors of interest.
C) Outcome 3 - Based upon the results of the project, various communities may
elect to contract for the development of individual community growth
strategies. This would be conducted separately from Phases I & II.
3. Eight proposals were received and reviewed by the economic developer’s task
force. Proposals were received from:
Rural Technology Strategies, Inc.
Praxis Strategy Group
New Economy Strategies
Wade Druin
Angle Technology Group
Battelle Memorial Institute
RTI International
C2ER
4. The economic developers reviewed each proposal and selected four finalists for
telephone interviews. The Governors Office of Economic Development was
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
167
invited to review the finalists and participate in the interviews. RFP evaluation
factors included, but were not limited to: the team each consultant brought to
the table, the proposed study process, strategy description, related work history,
telephone interview, reference checks, and price. Of the eight proposals
received prices ranged from $93,000 to $195,000. The preferred consultant’s fee
is $117,500.
5. The developers and GOED each ranked the four finalists. Any of the four
finalists was capable of conducting the process. Rural Technology Strategies and
RTI International were the two most preferred consultants. Rural Technology
Strategies was selected as the most preferred for several reasons, some of which
included a stronger emphasis on human capital, the number of days spent
interviewing in the region, interview discussion related to strategy development,
and the length of experience of key team members.
6. The Economic Developers Task Force has recommended, and the proposed
contract includes, the optional benchmarking analysis for a total project cost of
$117,500.
Received
Lake Area Improvement Corp. $12,500
Elk Point Economic Development Corp. $1,000
North Sioux City $1,000
City of Madison $12,500
City of Elkton $100
City of Flandreau $3,000
City of Brookings $30,000
City of Yankton $12,500
University of South Dakota $2,500
SDSU & SDSU Foundation $5,000
Deuel Area Development $1,000
Lake County Commission $1,000
Moody County Commission $1,000
Union County Commission $1,000
Clay County Commission $1,000
Grant County Commission $1,000
Brookings County Commission $1,000
City of Yankton/Yankton Area Progressive Growth $6,250
BEDC / Vision Brookings $10,000
City of Yankton/XYZ Corp. $6,250
Dakota State University $1,500
Total Collected $110,100
Pledged
Yankton Comm. Dev. (Ec. Dev.) $12,500
City of Vermillion $10,000
City of Watertown $12,500
Focus Watertown $12,500
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
168
Forward Sioux Falls $12,500
Vermillion Chamber and Economic Development $11,000
Governor’s Office of Economic Development TBD
Total Pledged $71,000
Total $181,100
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
169
Fixed Price
Technical Services Agreement
This agreement is entered into by and between City of Brookings, a public entity organized and
existing under the laws of the State of South Dakota and having offices at 414 Main Avenue,
Brookings, South Dakota 57006 (hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”) and Regional
Technology Strategies, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of North Carolina and having offices at 205 Lloyd Street, Suite 210, Carrboro, North
Carolina 27510 (hereinafter referred to “the Contractor “).
The CITY desires to utilize the services of the Contractor and the Contractor desires to
provide those services, and in consideration the CITY and the Contractor do agree as
follows:
1. The Contractor shall perform the services as more specifically described in the Scope of
Services contained in the Addendum to this agreement, “Regional Growth Strategy for the I-
29 Corridor” and including the optional Phase One task, “Comparative Benchmarking of
Similar Universities and Communities.”
2. The performance period for the contract shall be six months. It is anticipated that the
contract shall commence on December 1, 2009 and end on May 31, 2010.
3. This contract is issued on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) basis for a total price of $117,500.
Payment by the CITY under this agreement shall not exceed this amount.
4. The Contractor shall submit invoices and monthly reports presenting progress to date by
activity to: Al Heuton, Executive Director, Brookings Economic Development Corporation
and Jeff Weldon, City Manager, City of Brookings. Invoice terms are net 20 days. The final
invoice should be marked "Final Invoice'.
Payments shall be made according to the following schedule and terms:
$13,750 Upon Execution of the Contract
Six monthly payments as presented below. Each payment shall be due to RTS
upon approval by the CITY of the monthly status report describing progress
on activities scheduled to be performed as set forth in the six month project
timeline included in the Addendum to this agreement.
$15,000 Month One
$15,000 Month Two
$15,000 Month Three
$15,000 Month Four
$15,000 Month Five
$15,000 Month Six
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
170
$13,750 Due Upon Acceptance of Final Phase 2 Strategic Action Plan
5. This agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, by written notice of the CITY for
any reason. The notice of termination shall specify the extent to which performance is
terminated and the effective date of such termination.
The Contractor shall submit a termination claim to the CITY within 60 days of receipt of the
notice. The Contractor and the CITY may agree upon the amount to be paid by reason of
the termination, provided, that total payments under the agreement shall not exceed the
total contract amount and shall not include anticipatory profits for the work terminated nor
consequential damages because of the termination.
6. The CITY may at any time, by written order, require the Contractor to stop all, or any
part, of the work. Upon receipt of such an order the Contractor shall take all reasonable
steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during
the period of work stoppage. The CITY shall either: (i) cancel the stop work order, or (ii)
terminate the work covered by such order.
7. Any dispute arising under this contract or the performance thereof which is not settled by
agreement between the parties shall be settled by appropriate legal, equitable, or
administrative proceedings. Pending any decision, appeal or judgment the Contractor shall
proceed diligently with the performance of this contract unless otherwise directed by the
CITY.
8. The Contractor's relationship with the CITY is that of an independent contractor.
Therefore, the Contractor shall be solely responsible for its own financial obligations.
Further, the Contractor is not covered by the CITY's insurance including, but not limited to
Worker's Compensation, Professional Liability, General Liability, and/or Automotive Liability
insurance.
9. This contract contains all of our understandings and agreements relating to the services
and may be changed only in writing signed by the CITY's authorized representative. This
contract shall be governed by the laws of, and enforced within the jurisdiction of the State of
South Dakota.
City of Brookings
______________________________________
Signature
______________________________________
Print Name and Title
______________________________________
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
171
Date
Regional Technology Strategies, Inc. (RTS)
______________________________________
Signature
______________________________________
Print Name and Title
______________________________________
Date
ADDENDUM
The Contractor is to provide services as described in the Contractor's September, 2009
proposal (attached) entitled “Regional Growth Strategy for the I-29 Corridor”
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
172
RTS Scope of Work
Statement of Understanding
The scope of work we present charts a course for crafting and implementing a comprehensive
regional growth plan for South Dakota’s I-29 Corridor Task Force. A plan designed to identify,
extend and parley existing and emerging private sector strengths in long-term sustainable job,
income and wealth growth. A plan designed not only to build and support the research
enterprise and educational assets at the region’s universities and link them to the private sector
as economic development drivers, but also retain their graduates and their knowledge, skills
and character as the key to the Corridor’s future growth and prosperity. A plan that
understands that collaborating to complete at the regional level is the only option.
The basic scope of work structure presented in the RFP is unique in RTS’ experience because it
features two separate strategic action plans, one to organize and guide the ample university
resources in the region, in concert with the private sectors, as an economic growth engine. The
other plan delivers an action agenda for a coordinated regional effort to identify and grow high
impact existing and emerging industrial clusters or sectors. Although we don’t often see this
approached in this fashion, we think it makes sense as the missions, goals, objectives and
cultures of universities are distinct from the private sector and it helps to understand on their
own terms when casting campuses as strong economic development actors. In this case, the
challenge is that at the end of the day the two plans must feed and leverage each other while
positioning the actions for the university community, in collaboration with the private sector, as
a powerful (but not the only) driver within the overall regional economic development action
plan.
The economic development process that is examined and harnessed through these plans is
dynamic and complex, but the goal is straightforward: more wealth in the I-29 Corridor
communities and more opportunities for all of the Corridor’s citizens. The I-29 Corridor’s
regional economy’s capacity to innovate and create new value is the key to sustaining its
wealth-generating process. The past several decades have witnessed a remarkable shift in what
constitutes economic value. While the most valuable companies in the world used to be
companies with vast physical assets, now many of the most valuable companies (such as Google,
Apple, and Microsoft) produce their wealth and their competitive advantage by generating,
acquiring and applying new knowledge and through creativity. As always, introducing and
expanding new value in the marketplace – innovation – is the heart of the matter. The plans
contemplated by this approach will focus much attention on building assets and systems that
enable and accelerate innovation and, just as importantly, capturing the results; that is, the jobs,
the companies, the technologies, the creativity assets and the entrepreneurs.
Certainly on paper, the I-29 Corridor starts the process with a rich mix of economic
development assets including its energy and bio-fuels activities in the private sector, its
healthcare concentration, a strong information and data security presence, its university and
private sector biotech and it medical profile across plant, veterinary and human applications.
Added to this mix are a substantive technology-based economic development infrastructure
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
173
defined by its series of research parks, existing and planned incubators, an innovation center, a
workforce alignment with post-secondary programs, some amount of locally controlled risk
capital, an entrepreneurship support entity in the Enterprise Institute and a supportive state
leadership.
With these assets already on the table within a growing regional economy defined within the
RFP to include eleven cities, six counties, seven different development organizations, two
universities and a major metropolitan area outside the definition but in the regional mix,
achieving swift, seamless and thorough coordination, a real regional orientation, and a culture of
collaboration can be a challenge. In a hypercompetitive environment in which entire countries
marshal resources by forming alliances and multinational corporations form networks to extend
resources and reach, no one community can afford to go it alone. Broad economic
development partnerships are required. The need for regional collaboration among government
jurisdictions, economic development, and education and training service providers has never
been more acute. The counties and cities of the I-29 Corridor are inextricably linked within a
single regional economy and labor market. Its corporations and small businesses all still hire
from the same labor pools and all need access to competitive technology and processes. Their
employees live throughout the region and their children are educated by the same school
systems and taught new skills by the same training institutions. They seek the same amenities
and use much of the same public infrastructure – including transportation. They all must use
what the region has to offer to extend their resources and create new advantage to compete in
the global marketplace. No community can afford to go it alone. It is important that these plans
and the initiatives they propel effectively address this issue
Scope of Work
Phase 1
Although the project is divided into two phases, we believe strongly that they are
complimentary and thus much of the information gathering in the two phases will take place
concurrently. This is especially true in regards to Phase 1, which involves linking university
strengths and linkages to regional growth sectors. Phase 1 will focus on the universities but
activities outlined in Phase 2 that offer quantitative and qualitative information about which
clusters bear closer attention will help inform the activities.
We suggest that this phase be organized into three overarching tasks:
Data Analysis of university strengths
• On the ground evaluation of university strengths and linkages to community strengths
• Formation of a strategic action plan to assist universities in taking advantage of the
region’s assets.
• In addition, we have included an optional task, which calls for case studies to be written
about other regions in the nation with similar industrial and geographic make-ups to
South Dakota and how they have utilized their universities to achieve economic
development success. We believe that these case studies offer a great opportunity for
the I-29 Corridor to learn from other successful regions.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
174
Phase 1—Task 1: Data analysis of university strengths
We believe that the best evaluation of university strengths will come through an intense on the
ground information gathering process described in the next task. However, there is valuable
information that can be gained through quantitative analysis. If appropriate information is
available for the three universities in the area, techniques that will be used include:
• Gathering time-series data on the amount of sponsored research, by source (in-state,
out-of-state, federal government, state government, private industry, foundation, other),
discipline, and field, for the three institutions with substantial sponsored research
activity. Data will be analyzed by industry sector and location where appropriate.
[Principal data source: National Science Foundation.]
• Gathering time-series data on patents, licenses, royalties, sales from licenses from the
three institutions with substantial research activity; indicate patterns and trends. [Data
source: Association of University Technology Managers and the U.S. Patent and Trade
Organization (USPTO)].
• Analyzing time-series data on trends in enrollment of graduate students in technology
related departments in the region, over a feasible recent period. [Data source: NSF.]
• Documenting R&D performance by non-academic user (at the most disaggregated level
currently available for industry); locate and document R&D volume by major labs and
non-profit research performers. [Data source: NSF, supplemented with proprietary
listings of private R&D labs and investigative work using key informants in the area.]
• Identifying “cooperative” federal R&D funding commitments in the region, including
from the Small Business Innovation Research program (SBIR); Small Business Technology
Transfer Research program (STTR); and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP).
• Using electronic citation abstracts to analyze highly cited papers by South Dakota
researchers, to identify highly productive academic research fields in the state
Phase 1, Task 2: On the ground evaluation of university strengths and linkages to
community strengths
Project team staff will visit each of the three universities to learn more about their core
strengths especially in relation to core industries. This will be accomplished through:
a) meetings and interviews with university faculty and lead researchers in key industrial
sectors, particularly those currently and actively involved in technology transactions in
the regions (e.g. a startup, a cooperative research relationship);
b) meetings and interviews with university administrators, particularly those with
leadership responsibilities in the area of community engagement;
c) meetings and interviews with private industry leadership, particularly those involved in
forging intraregional business and university networks; and,
d) meetings and conversations with leadership of community non-profit and public
organizations with mission responsibilities in the area of regional economic development
and network building.
While we will look at the range of industry and university core competencies during this
research, we believe the most important activities that will contribute to regional economic
growth in a venue such as the I-29 Corridor are those that will build enduring networks of
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
175
transactions (technology, business, human resources) between sectors and among key
organizations. These might focus on any or all of the following:
• Maximizing the retention of outstanding graduates within the region through programs
of internships, community-focused placement services, community-based senior project
programs, and many and varied partnerships between community business and the
instructional programs of higher education
• Developing entrepreneurship education, not confined to technology-based ventures
exclusively, but extending to a wide range of knowledge-based, high-wage service
industries
• Transferring known knowledge from universities to local firms via extension programs,
executive education and outreach
• Fostering a wide range of networking organizations and venues, some of which are
explicitly business-oriented and others that are “merely” cultural or community
improvement
Our on the ground research will be organized along the following steps and sub-tasks:
1) We will first identify a potential sample of interview respondents that will cut across
university, business, non-profit and government sectors. This will be conducted via a
nomination process involving a few key informants, which will involve several waves of
phone conversations and email exchanges. Based on previous experience, we expect
that the optimal sample of potential respondents will settle down into a few dozen
individuals, and assume that there will be approximately 25-50 completed interviews.
2) Second, we will conduct phone/email data collection using semi-structured interview
protocols and/or online questionnaires.
3) These interviews will lead into several on-site focus groups that will be organized into
both sector-specific (e.g., university leadership) and cross-sector (university-industry -
government) format. The RTS team will also be charged with creating a composite of
the quantitative data collection and qualitative group processes.
Phase 1—Task 3: Formation of strategic action plan to assist universities in taking
advantage of regional assets.
The information gained in Tasks 1 and 2 of this Phase coupled with the intensive quantitative
analysis conducted in Phase 2, will allow the project team to produce a strategic action plan
that:
• Offers concrete recommendations on how universities can better engage with industries
to promote workforce development. How can universities better prepare workers to
meet the labor needs identified particularly in those clusters and sectors that will drive
growth in the near future?
• Offers concrete recommendations on how universities can better engage with industries
to provide technical assistance. Are there efforts that, for instance, could be taken to help
companies improve efficiencies of operations? How are university extension employees
engaged in the field, and are there ways that their actions can be enhanced and
improved?
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
176
• Offers concrete recommendations on how universities can help form and encourage
alliances and networks in the region to prosper. In RTS’ extensive experience with clusters
around the nation, universities can perform a vital function in bringing companies and
local institutional actors together in way that promotes and encourages growth.
• Offers concrete recommendations on how universities can meet the research needs of
growth industries. The most successful regions build upon research being conducted at
their flagship institutions of higher learning. Helping the I-29 Corridor develop strategies
to take advantage of this opportunity will be an important element of the strategic
action report.
Phase 1—Optional Task: Comparative benchmarking of similar universities and
communities
In addition to gathering data on the ground in South Dakota, our experience is that clients can
also achieve significant learning and acquire a greater impetus toward action if they can
understand communities that are like them, and who have faced similar experiences. There are
dozens of “university towns” that are comparable in terms of demographics and going-in assets
to those of the I-29 Corridor. However, only a relatively few are doing well in terms of
leveraging university, business and community interactions and partnerships into high-wage,
knowledge-based regional economies that are also attractive places to live in. To this end we
suggest conducting two “best practice” case studies to advance the action agenda coming out of
the project. The steps to do this will include:
1. Client representatives and RTS leadership jointly identify a small number of candidate
cases based on similar industry make up and geographic similarity.
2. RTS conducts some sample-sorting analysis on historic outcomes (e.g., income and job
growth, community ratings) and working with the client identify two cases.
3. Using published information, online data and phone interviews, RTS will develop
practice cases of the two exemplars. Each will be 10-15 pages in length, and will be
reduced for presentation and dissemination purposes to operational descriptions of
what appears to be novel and effective practices.
4. As part of the project, one community-wide focus group meeting will be held to
introduce to the I-29 Corridor what has been learned.
The information gained during this case study process will be invaluable to helping the
community understand how similar regions have successfully handled the similar issues facing
the I-29 Corridor.
Phase II
The Phase II analysis will need to be conducted in parallel with Phase I as the knowledge we
gain in one phase will strengthen the other. For example, an emerging cluster we identify in
Phase II is likely to be a stronger target for development if it matches the university core
competencies we discover in Phase 1.
For Phase II, we suggest the following tasks be undertaken:
• Examination of existing publications and conversations with stakeholders
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
177
• Quantitative analysis of existing and emerging clusters and sectors
• Evaluation of the ability of clusters to support future growth
• Competitive analysis of I-29 corridor
• Formulation of a strategic action plan
Phase II—Task 1: Examination of existing materials/talking with stakeholders
The team will review previously released state or regional publications relevant to the effort.
These could include local CEDS plans, publications from the state or research projects
launched by local industry. These studies will be looked at to see which clusters or sectors are
seen as engines of growth for the I-29 corridor. A key here will be to not reinvent the wheel
but rely on past quality analyses and view them through the lens of a ground-truthing process.
In addition, the project team will talk to stakeholders in the project to learn more about their
thoughts on what sectors demonstrate the best potential for growth. Initial conversations such
as these are a necessary process to help an outside group of analysts learn about any new
efforts that could have an impact on the numbers but might not be captured by the data.
Phase II—Task 2: Quantitative Analysis of Existing and Emerging Sectors and Clusters
We will begin with a comprehensive sector and cluster analysis starting at the state level and
quickly drilling down to the regional level. While the focus will usually look at the I-29 Corridor
as a whole there may be sectors and/or clusters where the more relevant unit of analysis is a
sub-region. We will begin at the sector level and then look more closely at emerging or
existing clusters. While sectors can provide strategic targets for growth, the synergy – the
whole is bigger than the sum of the parts – of clusters provides a robust basis for strategic
regional development. For example, university faculty and the school’s core competencies can
be integrated into a cluster network where there is interaction between the university and
companies within the cluster.
We will use a 5-year time horizon for the analysis and use a proprietary data analysis system,
Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI) that provides a more complete picture of the
economy by including the self employed and estimating suppressed data, a significant problem in
less populated areas with smaller economies Additional detail and focus will be given to the
leading economic clusters that are driving the regional economy. This will go beyond the typical
data-driven analysis to build a richer understanding of these economic leaders. We will look at
concentration, where the region has more than its share of economic action within a cluster
and see how that cluster has developed over time including understanding the relationships of
companies and how the cluster value chain works.
We will examine and describe the leading industries and see how they have grown or
contracted with a view toward the bigger state, national and global economy. We will examine
employment and production changes, value-added, concentrations (relative to the state and
national economies), wage levels and numbers and sizes of companies within each major
sector/cluster of the region. Where data are available we will describe how these industries
have changed during the global economic crisis. Specifically we will:
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
178
• For existing clusters examine in terms of concentrations in employment and firms
(location quotients), size of firms, value-added, entrepreneurial activity and wages
• For existing clusters look at supply chain strengths to determine the depth of
regional linkages as well as linkages to universities and any other technology and
research assets found in Phase I
• For emerging clusters focus more in terms of growth of employment and of firms,
wage levels, workforce needs compared to workforce capacity and size of firms with an
emphasis on entrepreneurial activity and wages
• For emerging clusters, since supply chain linkages will probably be weak, look more
in-depth at the potential for a university connection as well as supply chain based
recruitment
• Leading employers within the existing and emerging economic base will be identified
and described to provide a more granular picture. Where feasible we will also identify
and describe new firms that are having, or may have, a significant impact on the regional
economy
Phase II—Task 3: Evaluation of the clusters’ ability to support future growth
To analyze the ability of the identified clusters to support growth, RTS will examine the seven
factors that have been found to be particularly critical elements of cluster competitiveness.
These factors are used to describe the clusters’ strengths and weaknesses and compare them
to competitors in other parts of the United States and world. Drawing from extensive
literature on clusters and cluster methodology, and from RTS’ experiences studying dozens of
clusters and developing cluster-based methodologies, we have found that the most critical
elements of cluster competitiveness are:
• Regional Workforce and Human Capital
• Innovation and R&D Assets
• Entrepreneurial energy and access to financial capital
• Connectivity within and outside of the cluster
• Access to specialized services and suppliers
• Marketing capabilities and ease of transporting goods and people
• Quality of Life and Amenities
The RTS team approach in evaluating each of these asset categories appears below.
Regional Workforce and Knowledge Capital
For the selected clusters, we will examine the availability, mobility, skills, knowledge, knowhow
of the existing and potential work force from the perspective of the occupational composition
of the existing work force and its education levels, the enrollments and completions by
occupational program, and the perceptions of employers’ of the strengths and weaknesses of
the workforce. We will also take a broad look at where the populace acquires its skills,
including public and private providers, not-for-profit institutions, and on-the-job training. This
will include a scan of existing public and private education and training providers and cataloging
public and private sector programs and courses pertaining to the clusters.
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
179
Innovation and R&D Assets
Much of our analysis of the R&D assets of the region will occur in Phase 1 of the project as we
examine the three universities special contribution to the cluster. This section will supplement
our findings by looking at the role of the private sector. Our efforts will focus on quantitative
and qualitative measures including SBIR/STTR award and, identifying concentrations of
engineers, scientists, and technicians.
Entrepreneurial Energy and Access to Financial Capital
Identifying barriers to traditional debt financing for existing and expanding businesses is the first
step to assessing the financial capital availability in the region. We will scan the availability of
various types of early and mid-stage capital for start-ups, such as venture capital, angel
investors, mezzanine financing, and targeted equity funds, as well as state tax incentives.
Connectivity Within and Outside the Cluster
The asset that typically distinguishes the most competitive clusters from the rest of the field is
the presence of a social infrastructure that allows the free flow of ideas, innovation, and
learning. Though the least tangible of the core competencies, the stock of social capital within a
regional economy can dramatically shape its future. By social capital, we mean the quantity and
quality of economic and civic relationships that exist within a region. These relationships
provide the vehicles for communication and consensus building within the region. They govern
the speed and spread of information flow and the diffusion of innovation. As new business
strategies and technologies emerge within the region, it is social capital that determines how
quickly these new ideas are understood and adopted or adapted by other economic actors.
We will examine the social capital of the region and assess its adequacy and accessibility to both
established members of the community and new entrants from diverse backgrounds. We will
do so through identification of key associations/ organizations, industry leaders, and other
venues for associational behavior for each identified cluster. RTS will also identify and review
other venues for associational behavior, including networks, training programs, seminars, trade
shows, professional associations, and conferences that private businesses and cluster members
identify as valuable.
Access to Specialized Services and Suppliers
Availability of public and private support services and easy access to the providers of these
services are important to the success of industries and clusters. We will analyze the availability
of business support programs through small business development and information centers.
Other important organizations include – but are not limited to – manufacturing and agricultural
extension centers, economic development corporations, groups, authorities, foundations, and
trade associations.
Marketing Capabilities and Ease of Transporting Goods and People
With the increased popularity of the Internet, marketing practices and needs have changed
quite substantially in the recent past. Many individual businesses advertise their products on
their own web site, and industry associations often provide assistance and link to their
members’ web pages from a central directory. Traditional marketing methods, such as
magazines and trade shows, remain important means to reach potential clients. These days, for
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
180
many businesses, the Internet is the most important marketing tool to promote their products
worldwide. While businesses with very large products use common carriers (truck or truck
plus rail), many high-technology companies rely on overnight courier services like UPS or
FedEx. Many businesses also view the availability of reliable, affordable broadband Internet
access as “transportation” and as an absolute requirement, since they take orders and provide
customer service online. Accordingly we will examine the availability of broadband access and
quality transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of the identified clusters.
Quality of Life and Amenities
Attracting and retaining high-skill human capital is critical in building and sustaining economic
development momentum in the 21st century. In particular, knowledge workers and knowledge
industries of the technology economy are “footloose”; they locate where there are amenities,
including cultural attractions; entertainment options; natural attractions; groups of artists,
musicians, or performers; openness to new ideas; and special events. All contribute to the
“quality of life” of an area. Therefore we will look closely at issues related to quality of life both
as a way to attract new firms and individuals and a way to keep the most qualified individuals in
the region.
Phase II-Task 4: Competitive Analysis and Benchmarking
In the best of times regions must stay vigilantly focused on economic competitiveness. Issues
such as regulatory and tax environment, effective governance, consistency of policies,
educational system quality, workforce, and infrastructure are examined to make fundamental
decisions about where to start, locate or expand commercial, industrial and service companies.
Winners and losers are chosen but the pool of prospects and the size of the pie make
economic gardening and hunting more consistently successful.
But in economic crisis, when prospects are grim, caution replaces risk-taking and “no-go”
decisions are the rule rather than the exception, the stakes become higher, creativity becomes
more important, targeting and prioritization become key and alternatives to the status quo are
necessary. Both traditional economic development tools as well 21st century focuses on
innovation, creativity and technology must reflect and respond to this reality.
We propose to take a look at the I-29 Corridor and define competitiveness strategies that can
build a strong future even during the present economic malaise. RTS will shape its work around
this reality and develop strategies that give practical suggestions for what industries and
companies make sense for the Corridor and how they connect to university assets and
technologies. The focus will be on assets, opportunities, and strategies that help match its
regions to sectors and companies where they are competitive for upcoming business decisions
to create, locate, or expand businesses that are competitive and pay high wages. From this we
will describe a final product with an action-oriented approach that will assist the Corridor in
pro-actively building its economy.
Our competitive analysis will look at traditional site location factors for relocating and
expanding firms as well as the 21st issues of firm location given the increasing importance of
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
181
place, technology and the attraction and retention of a creative and innovative workforce that
can drive globally competitive businesses. Essentially we will look at the core competencies of
the region from the standpoint of (new and existing) firm needs. Firm needs of course will vary
according to product mix but the region needs to understand its strengths and weaknesses in
order to develop realistic but bold strategic initiatives.
Since some of these factors are part of the statewide picture we will begin there, but most
location decisions are made on an examination of regional assets and liabilities. More relevant
to I-29 regional growth strategies are those things that are under regional control or at least
can be affected within the region. Much of this information is likely to be readily available from
local and regional economic development professionals in the I-29 Corridor so we will focus on
how these factors relate to university assets and the emerging and existing clusters. We will
examine, at a minimum:
• Business climate including taxes (state, local, regional), regulation, regulatory
consistency and responsiveness, permitting, licensing, and reporting, and workers
compensation and unemployment insurance
• Incentives available from state local and regional sources
• Workforce including workforce availability, skills and wage rates, demographics (age of
workforce), commuting and vocational and community college assets available for
lifelong learning. Although much of this will be discussed in Task 2 of this Phase it bears
further mention from a competitiveness standpoint.
• Cost structures including energy costs and availability, land and building costs and
transportation options and pricing
• Availability of greenfield, brownfield, and shovel ready sites and available “read-to-
move- in” commercial and industrial buildings
• Infrastructure including transportation and sewer and water capacity
• Access to markets and market size
• Access to financing and capital
• Quality of life including education, cost of living, crime, climate, cultural resources, and
recreational opportunities
Phase II—Task 5 Creating a Strategic Action Plan
Based on the information learned in Task I and II and through frequent communication with the
Task Force and other stakeholders, RTS will deliver a strategic plan that suggests a regional
growth strategy to foster real economic development outcomes. RTS has long experience in
creating just such a regional plan including crafting plans that resulted in regional development
plans in Central Louisiana and Virginia. In each of these cases, effective regional approaches
were rooted in RTS’ on the ground analysis that helped these communities understand their
regional assets and how they could best take advantage of these strengths.
5. Budget
For this project, RTS is proposing a not-to-exceed cost of $105,000. This is inclusive of all
labor, all data purchases and all travel. The proposal includes significant time spent on the
ground in the I-29 Corridor meeting with the Task Force and stakeholders. In total, the project
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
182
team envisions spending 27 person days on the ground. In addition to this fixed price contract,
we have proposed an optional Phase 1 Task calling for the benchmarking of comparable
communities with similar university capacity. This benchmarking, which we believe would yield
critical information, could be done for an additional $12,500.
The budget breakdown by task in the Scope of Work is as follows:
Phase 1: $40,000
Phase 2: $65,000
Total Cost: $105,000
Optional Task for Phase 1: $12,500
Total Cost with Optional Task: $117,500
(Note: The economic developer’s task force is recommending the $117,500 total project cost
which includes the optional competitive benchmarking task.)
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
183
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
By and Between the
City of Brookings, a South Dakota municipality,
and the
City of Watertown, a South Dakota municipality
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the development of the I-29 Corridor Regional Growth
Strategy, the I-29 Corridor Task Force has requested proposals from consultants for services to
assist the I-29 Corridor Task Force in conducting a regional economic growth analysis,
development of a regional growth strategy and strategy implementation efforts (“the project”),
and has now selected a consultant; and
WHEREAS, the I-29 Corridor Task Force includes numerous member entities, including the
City of Brookings and the City of Watertown. The City of Brookings and the City of
Watertown are municipal corporations authorized to enter into agreements with one another
for joint or cooperative action pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-24; and
WHEREAS, the I-29 Corridor Task Force requires a public agency, such as the City of
Watertown or the City of Brookings, to serve as a contracting entity and fiscal agent for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has agreed to serve as the contracting entity and fiscal
agent on behalf of the I-29 Corridor Task Force, NOW THEREFORE, the parties do hereby
agree as follows:
1. The City of Brookings will serve as a contracting entity and fiscal agent on behalf of
the I-29 Corridor Task Force for the project, and
2. The City of Brookings will contract with the consultant selected by the I-29
Corridor Task Force, and as fiscal agent for the I-29 Corridor Task Force for this
project will receive funds from the I-29 Task Force member entities and other
sources, and will disburse payments to the consultant, and will perform such other
tasks as fiscal agent as necessary and as the parties hereto agree and subsequently
set forth in amendments to this Memorandum of Understanding.
Dated this ____ day of November, 2009. Dated this ____ day of November, 2009.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD
_____________________________ _____________________________
Tim Reed Gary Williams
Mayor, City of Brookings Mayor, City of Watertown
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk _____________________, Finance Officer
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
184
Other Business
20. Discussion and possible action on a funding pledge for the
proposed McCrory Gardens Visitors Center.
November 5, 2009
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: McCrory Gardens Visitors Center request
At the previous council meeting, the Council inquired about a debt re-payment schedule
for considering this request as it impacts other debt service obligations. Specifically, its
impact to the current outstanding debt on the Hillcrest Aquatic Center.
You will recall by previous Council action, we undertook an improvement project for
the exterior of the Larson Ice Center which was not budgeted. A large portion of this
project was donated and the balance was loaned to us with the repayment to be
scheduled by adding one additional payment year following the last payment year of the
outstanding pool debt.
With regard to our pool debt, we have a principal/interest payment in 2010 of $338,800
and the final pool principal/interest payment in 2011 of $323,400. By adding one
payment for the Larson Center exterior improvements to the schedule for the pool
means we have one principal/interest payment on the Larson Center of $154,050 in
2012. (NOTE: We also have interest-only payments on the Larson Center in 2010 and 2011
of $4,050 each year.)
As a result, 2013 is the first year we have no debt obligations for Hillcrest Aquatic
Center or the Larson Ice Center. However, we have added debt obligations for the
Innovation Campus and Storm Drainage Projects; and are considering additional debt
for other capital projects.
City Manager Introduction
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
185
Steven J. Britzman
Brookings City Attorney
521 Sixth Street, Suite 104 Telephone (605) 697-9058
Brookings, South Dakota 57006 Facsimile (605) 697-9060
____________________________________________________________
Memorandum
To: Jeff Weldon, City Manager, Shari Thornes, City Clerk
From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney
Date: November 12, 2009
Re: Current State statutes concerning 5-year promissory note for projects such as McCrory
Gardens Visitor Center
The following statutes are the statutes for a promissory note with a private party. The
term is limited to 5 years and the amount borrowed would have to be computed by our
Finance Manager based on the limits explained in 9-25-13.
9-25-12. Bonds and notes - Promissory notes - Repayment - Sources - Recitals -
Issuance and sale - Maximum term.
A municipality may borrow money from any source willing to lend the money by issuing
a promissory note subject to the limitations set in §§ 9-25-13 to 9-25-16, inclusive. Notes issued
pursuant to this section are payable solely from the sources provided in § 9-25-13 and do not
constitute an indebtedness of the municipality within the meaning of any constitutional or
statutory provisions or limitations, any provisions in the notes set forth or set forth in the
resolution authorizing the notes to the contrary notwithstanding. The notes shall recite the
authority under which the notes are issued and shall state that the notes are issued in
conformity with the provisions, restrictions, and limitations of §§ 9-25-13 to 9-25-16, inclusive,
and that the notes and the interest thereon are payable from the sources therein provided. The
notes shall be authorized, issued, and sold in accordance with chapter 6-8B. No election is
required and the notes may not be issued for a term in excess of five years. However, notes
issued for loans authorized by the United States Department of Agriculture may be issued for a
term of not more than ten years.
9-25-13. Bonds and notes - Promissory notes - Maximum amount.
The money borrowed pursuant to § 9-25-12 may not exceed the sum of ninety-five
percent of the amount of anticipated special assessment bond proceeds or may not exceed the
sum of ninety-five percent of the amount of uncollected taxes levied by the municipality for the
current fiscal year plus other receivables of the fund, including state or federal grant moneys,
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
186
which have been earned by the municipality or committed by the state or federal governments
but not collected at the date of borrowing.
9-25-14. Bonds and notes - Borrowing limit reduced by amounts outstanding.
If any registered warrants or promissory notes are outstanding against the fund for
which the money is to be borrowed, the borrowing limit specified in § 9-25-13 shall be reduced
by the amount of such outstanding warrants or promissory notes.
9-25-15. Bonds and notes - Promissory notes - Interest rates - Signatures.
The rate of interest shall be stated on the note authorized by § 9-25-12. The notes shall
be signed by the chief executive officer of the municipality and by the municipal finance officer.
9-25-16. Bonds and notes - Promissory notes - Cash receipts applied until
retirement.
If a note authorized by § 9-25-12 has been issued and not paid in full within the term
provided in § 9-25-12, then thereafter no cash receipts may be expended for any purpose
except the retirement of principal and interest of notes outstanding against that fund, until all
such notes are retired.
05,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00075% Proposed Public Improvement Cash FlowAnnual ExpendituresAnnual RevenuesCash‐10,000,000‐5,000,00005,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,0002008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 202175% Proposed Public Improvement Cash FlowAnnual ExpendituresAnnual RevenuesCash(Chart Includes SDSU Request)
Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ExpendituresDebt Service2003 Swiftel/Library Principle 765,000 790,000 810,000 840,000 870,000 900,000 2003 Swiftel/Library Interest 168,320 143,840 118,560 91,830 62,850 32,400 2001 Ice Arena/PAC Principal**-2021 275,000 285,000 300,000 310,000 325,000 340,000 585,000 755,000 790,000 835,000 875,000 920,000 970,000 1,015,000 2001 Ice Arena/PAC* Interest 422,206 410,656 398,401 385,201 371,251 340,321 312,241 275,624 236,519 193,725 148,881 101,731 52,019 2005 Retail/Principal 290,000 295,000 305,000 315,000 325,000 340,000 355,000 365,000 2005 Retail/Interest 91,908 82,011 71,673 60,718 49,248 37,160 24,400 10,725 2006 Aquatic Pool/Principal 308,000 308,000 308,000 308,000 2006 Aquatic Pool/Interest 61,600 46,200 30,800 15,400 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 150,000 2009 Larson Advance/LIC Exterior 4,050 4,050 4,050 2009 Innovation Campus SRF Loan/Principal 44,134 45,473 46,853 48,274 49,739 51,248 52,803 54,405 56,055 57,756 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/SRF Interest 78,838 35,207 33,868 32,488 31,067 29,602 28,093 26,538 24,937 23,285 21,585 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/GF Principal 105,213 107,868 110,590 113,381 116,242 119,175 122,183 125,266 128,427 131,668 134,991 2009 Innovation Campus Loan/GF Interest 66,369 63,714 60,992 58,201 55,340 52,406 49,399 46,315 43,154 39,913 36,591 *Swiftel Expansion Principal 209,112 219,810 231,056 242,878 255,304 268,365 282,096 296,528 *Swiftel Expansion Interest 351,058 340,359 329,113 317,293 304,866 291,804 278,074 263,642 *City Hall Principal 133,297 138,727 144,379 150,262 156,384 162,755 169,386 176,287 183,469 *City Hall Interest 160,009 154,578 148,926 143,044 136,922 130,550 123,920 117,019 109,836 *Airport Expansion Principal 1,807,490 1,898,994 1,995,131 2,096,134 2,202,251 *Airport Expansion Interest 477,685 386,181 290,045 189,041 82,924 *SDSU Performing Arts Center Add'n 352,503 370,537 389,495 409,422 430,369 452,387 475,532 499,862 525,435 *SDSU Performing Arts Center Add'n603,710 585,676 566,718 546,791 525,844 503,826 480,681 456,352 430,778 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Total Annual Debt Service2,383,234 2,361,907 2,347,684 2,581,819 2,409,522 3,151,202 5,651,707 5,789,951 5,412,610 5,418,507 5,415,710 3,130,692 3,133,542 3,128,830*Swiftel Center $8.5M/Library $2.8MCash ProjectsRailroad Switch 15,191 Boys & Girls Club 100,000 100,000 100,000 Swiftel CIP 225,000 117,623 350,000 483,000 152,000 105,000 103,500 Critical Need-Forestry Aerial Truck 135,000 Bike Trail Improvement Project - 101,000 SDSU Research Park 150,000 150,000 150,000 SDSU Wellness Center 500,000 Nature Park 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Larson holding barn concrete floor & turf 125,000 Automation irrigation system/Edgebrook 170,000 Airport Expansion 294,880 500,000 S Main Ave sewer line extension 500,000 Spl Assmnt-Street-15th St S/7th Ave S 870,000 Street Improvements 516,000 420,000 400,000 300,000 150,000Public Improvement Planning Tool with SDSU Proposals
Assuming an annual revenue increase of 1.03Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021ExpendituresStreet Development 700,000 500,000 1,650,000 0 2,500,000 SDSU Innovation Campus 694,000 Animal Control/Humane Society Bldg 100,000 100,000 Bob Shelden baseball field upgrade 200,000 Adult baseball fields (2) Southbrook 175,000 Mickelson Middle School baseball lighting 190,000 Railroad Traffic Signals 150,000 1,350,000 Fire Station550,000 City/School Partnership Park-Land 200,000 R & T Center-Chip seal parking lot 7,000 Aquatic Center/Lazy River2,000,000 City/School Partnership Park-Land 200,000 SDSU McCory Gardens1,000,000 SDSU Performing Arts Addition 11,800,000 Total Cash Projects2,114,560 1,017,814 3,750,880 3,130,00015,517,000 1,805,000 2,803,500 2,900,000000000Total Annual Expenditures 4,497,794 3,379,721 6,098,564 5,711,819 17,926,522 4,956,202 8,455,207 8,689,951 5,412,610 5,418,507 5,415,710 3,130,692 3,133,542 3,128,830Revenues75% Sales Tax Revenue 3,773,029 3,506,250 3,611,438 3,719,781 3,831,374 3,946,315 4,064,705 4,186,646 4,312,245 4,441,613 4,574,861 4,712,107 4,853,470 4,999,074DtiDonations61,600 46,200 36,200 20,800 Interest131,590 82,570 86,400 51,188 22,634Interfund Loan Repayment17,097 16,413 15,712 14,993 14,256 13,50012,726 11,931 11,117 10,282 9,426 8,549Total Annual Revenues 3,966,219 3,635,020 3,751,134 3,808,182 3,869,720 3,961,308 4,078,961 4,200,146 4,324,971 4,453,544 4,585,978 4,722,389 4,862,896 5,007,623Revenue Bond Proceeds12,800,000*Tax Increment Revenue/TIF 1 FAA Grant Match4,000,000 6,000,000Total Debt Proceeds 0 0 0 0 12,800,000 4,000,000 6,000,0000000000Total Revenues 3,966,219 3,635,020 3,751,134 3,808,182 16,669,720 7,961,308 10,078,961 4,200,146 4,324,971 4,453,544 4,585,978 4,722,389 4,862,896 5,007,623Annual Net-531,575 255,299 -2,347,429 -1,903,636 -1,256,802 3,005,106 1,623,753 -4,489,805 -1,087,639-964,963 -829,732 1,591,697 1,729,354 1,878,7930.1Ending Balance5,504,691 5,759,990 3,412,561 1,508,925 252,1233,257,229 4,880,983 391,177 -696,461 -1,661,424 -2,491,156 -899,460 829,894 2,708,687Minimum Bal 10% cash flow339,923 0 0 0 0000000000Restricted Cash Debt2,192,673 2,174,923 2,174,923 2,174,923 3,454,923 3,454,923 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573 2,677,573Available Cash2,972,095 3,585,067 1,237,638 -665,998 -3,202,800-197,694 2,203,410 -2,286,396 -3,374,034 -4,338,997 -5,168,729 -3,577,033 -1,847,679 31,114*Estimated figuresPublic Improvement Planning Tool with SDSU Proposals
$
DEBT WORKSHEET 2009
Brookings Debt Limit 42,750,224.00$
Debt Outstanding
Description of Bonds Outstanding Principal Outstanding Interest Total Outstanding
-$ -$
Sales Tax Bonds -$ -$ 15,134,504.00$
2001 Sales Tax 8,305,000.00$ 205,328.00$ 8,510,328.00$
2003 Sales Tax 4,210,000.00$ 71,920.00$ 4,281,920.00$
2005 Sales Tax 2,300,000.00$ 42,256.00$ 2,342,256.00$
-$ -$ -$
Storm Drainage -$ 2,000,000.00$
SRF Loan (Total proposed $8M)2,000,000.00$ -$ 2,000,000.00$
-$ -$ -$
Tax Incremental Bonds -$ -$ 5,359,000.00$
TIF #3/Valley View Add'n 1,035,000.00$ -$ 1,035,000.00$
TIF #4/Sieler Add'n 440,000.00$ -$ 440,000.00$
TIF#1/SDSU Innovation Campus 3,884,000.00$ -$ 3,884,000.00$
Other Indebtedness -$ 766,000.00$
Acquatic Center 616,000.00$ -$ 616,000.00$
Larson Ice Center 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$
TOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEBTTOTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEBT 23 259 504 00$23,259,504.00
Remaining Debt Limit 19,490,720.00$
Proposed Bond Issue 41,800,000.00$
Storm Drainage 6,000,000.00$
Airport 12,000,000.00$
City Hall 5,000,000.00$
Swiftel Center Expansion 7,000,000.00$
SDSU Performing Arts Expansion/McCory Gardens 11,800,000.00$
Over Debt Limit ($22,309,280.00)
McCrory McCrory Gardens Gardens CenterCenter
A presentation to the
Brookings City Council
South Dakota State University
October 27, 2009
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
McCrory McCrory Gardens CenterGardens Center
McCrory Gardens’ tripartite mission
Funding request
Architect’s renderings
Project estimates
Project funding
Conclusion
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
Tripartite missionTripartite mission
Outdoor teaching laboratory
•SDSU classes
•Extension (Master Gardener program, horticulture)
•Public education and continuing education
•Pre-K through 12 education (field trips, straw bale classroom)
Research
•‘Professor McCrory envisioned a research garden
to display trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers that were,
or could be, a part of South Dakota’s landscape.’
— 1966 vision for McCrory Gardens
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
Tripartite missionTripartite mission
Outreach and patron considerations
•Collaboration with museums
•Robust volunteer program built from today’s 40-60 people
•6,000 to 8,000 summer visitors annually
•Conferences, events, receptions weddings and retreats
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
Funding requestFunding request
$1 million from city general fund
•One-time construction request
•28.1 percent of $3.55 million project
•City funding applied to public spaces
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
ArchitectArchitect’’s renderingss renderings
Front (facing north)
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
ArchitectArchitect’’s renderingss renderings
Patio view (south)
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
ArchitectArchitect’’s renderingss renderings
Floor plan (10,444 square feet)
Expansion option
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
ArchitectArchitect’’s renderingss renderings
Position relative
to 22nd Avenue
•East side of gardens
•Near current
auxiliary entrance
Straw bale classroom
22nd
Avenue
Maintenance building
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
Project estimatesProject estimates
Basic facility — $3.55 million
•8,670 square feet with great hall, welcome area and offices
•Site development, utilities and main parking lot
•Gateway sign at Sixth Street and 22nd Avenue
•Entrance sign off 22nd Avenue
Expanded facility — $5.5 million
•Additional conference rooms (adds 1,774 square feet)
•Auxiliary parking
•South plaza
•Children’s garden
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
Project fundingProject funding
Lead gift — $1.5 million
•Initial concept development work through SDSU Foundation
•Advances project more aggressively than original timeline
City commitment — $1 million
•Applied only to public space
•Enhances McCrory Gardens as a destination for all ages
•Enables special events throughout year
Private funding — $1 million to $3 million
•Presented as matching funds with lead gift
•Engages Friends of McCrory Gardens in process
McCrory Gardens Presentation, South Dakota State University, October 2009
ConclusionConclusion
Funding request
•$1 million applied to public space
•Advances project ahead of original timeline
Benefit to Brookings
•Outdoor events venue unique to city
•Amenity that builds Brookings as a creative community
•Destination for patrons of all ages
•Gateway that visitors identify with Brookings
City Council Packet
November 17, 2009
216
21. Adjourn.