HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_03_11 CC PKTMarch 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a
diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally
responsible municipal management.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Update from First Planning District by Dick Edenstrom, Executive Director.
2. Discussion regarding Swiftel Center Expansion Plans.
3. Draft policy for the government access channel and televised meetings.
4. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
5. City Clerk Reports:
A. Upcoming Council Meetings
B. Council Invites & Obligations
6. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion
and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08, establishing Charges for Collections and Disposal
of Refuse in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street sweeper.
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, authorizing city participation in a Title V Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Grant.
F. Action on Resolution No. 23-08, authorizing the city manager to enter a liquor
operating agreement renewal with David Olson Inc., dba Danny’s, located at 703
Main Avenue South.
1
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
G. Action on a request from First Bank and Trust to abate 2007 taxes in the amount
of $2,000 for Lots 13-14, Block 13, Second Addition (vacant lot).
H. Action to appoint Dick Smith as the Assistant City Attorney.
I. Action on Resolution No. 24-08, to Change the Functional Classification of Certain
Streets in the City of Brookings.
J. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 26th for a goal setting
retreat.
K. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 18th with the County
Commission.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
* Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time,
without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed
from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items
means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda
supporting documentation.
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 11-08 - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental
Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds
For The Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: March 25th
** 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.
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
8. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W
from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3
District (1500 Block 20th Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 07-08 - An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in
the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all
in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section
35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
2
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Other Business.
12. Presentation of Annual Financial Report to Council.
Action: Informational
13. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council
Scott Munsterman, Mayor
Tim Reed, Deputy Mayor
Mike Bartley, Council Member
Tom Bezdichek, Council Member
Ryan Brunner, Council Member
Ginger Thomson, Council Member
Julie Whaley, Council Member
Council Staff:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Steven Britzman, City Attorney
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Starting March 11th, view the City Council meeting live on Channel 9.
The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org
If you require assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at 692-6281 at
least 3 working days prior to the meeting.
3
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce
topics.
1. Update from First Planning District.
Dick Edenstrom, First Planning District Executive Director, will make a short presentation on
their organization’s 2007 activities.
No action is requested.
Estimated time (5 minutes)
4
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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. Discusssion Regarding Swiftel Center Expansion Plans.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Work session discussion of VenuWorks report on the possible expansion of the
Swiftel Center
You are scheduled to have your second discussion about the VenuWorks feasibility study on the
possible expansion of the Swiftel Center at your work session on March 11. Your first discussion
was to receive the report and hear an introductory presentation from VenuWorks which occurred
on February 12.
The purpose of this memo is to suggest a framework for your discussion in an effort to attempt to
promote a productive dialogue as you go about analyzing the report with the goal of ultimately
leading to good decision-making about this issue.
However, before we do that, I believe it would be instructive to recognize up front and early in
this process the relationship of this issue to the consultant. VenuWorks has provided this feasibility
study at no cost to the City and it was conducted in accordance with their usual and customary
practices and procedures for any client. VenuWorks is also our current contractor to manage the
facility. The positive aspect of this relationship is that, as our contract service provider, they are
keenly aware of all the operating and marketing details of the facility; information that is
invaluable when executing such a feasibility study. More than any other consultant, they are, in
my opinion, perhaps the best-equipped to undertake such a study. The negative aspect of this
relationship is that, as our current service provider, they stand to benefit from a positive outcome
of such a study. Any subsequent decisions by the City to undertake an expansion based on this
study puts VenuWorks in a favorable position for contract renewal as a service provider. This
could be interpreted as a conflict of interest except for the fact the City did not pay for the study.
The value of the study is estimated between $30,000-$45,000. As such, I would suggest we
remain cognizant of these points as we analyze the report.
Having made that disclaimer, I would suggest a process to analyze this report is to identify the
key sections of the document that are most important to discuss first, and then move to other
sections so our discussion builds upon a solid foundation of what is really the most important early
in the evaluation. This process makes sure “form follows function” in our discussion and will keep
us from “putting the cart before the horse.” For example, the architectural design of a building is
a non-issue if we have not quantified what functions we want the building to perform. As such, it
makes little sense to discuss the size or layout of any given room if we have not determined how
we want this room to function. The architectural issues will result from decisions made about
functionality.
Examining the document suggests we start with a discussion of Chapter 4 (Market Analysis);
Chapter 6 (Analysis of Need for Expansion); and the portion of Chapter 8 that addresses
Economic Impact. The other aspects of the study such as Chapter 3 (Methodology) are for
5
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
illustrative purposes only; and Chapters 5 and 9 are best suited for future discussion as are an
examination of capital and operating costs. These latter items simply do not matter if we cannot
quantify the need or the market to sustain such a project.
The crucial questions needs to be asked, “Why do we want to consider expanding the Swiftel
Center?” and “Is there a market we could capture if we had the right facilities that would be
economically beneficial? The answer to these questions must be that such an investment will help
the community economically by doing the following: Make Brookings a regional attraction for
more events; increase population, increase sales tax revenue, provide economic spin-off, add
more cultural events, draw more visitors, spawn business development and growth, … the list goes
on. Data described on page 44 concludes conventions and meetings often drive between 25 and
40 percent of a community’s tourism and hospitality gross revenues. In addition, the data suggests
adequate lodging capacity is needed for large-scale conventions/conferences. An expansion of
the Swiftel is likely to spur another round of private investment in lodging facilities which
translates into more sales tax revenue.
If, on the other hand, we cannot conclude the project will indeed achieve these goals at a cost
worth the investment; or if we conclude there is no more market for the Swiftel to capture that
builds upon its current success, we need go no further. The challenge before us is to craft a
project that matches the market and needs data that best achieves these goals.
The basic premise of the feasibility study is to determine whether or not the Swiftel Center has the
operational and programmatic capability to augment its current functions to expand into hosting
conferences and conventions; and whether or not there is a sufficient market to support and
sustain the capital and operating investment required. The ability to attract
conventions/conferences of a larger scale for the community than currently done is a different
venue than current Swiftel Center functions. The study concludes the Brookings market with its
current economic outlook, media outlets, and demographics, has a market strong enough to attract
convention/conference events. The detailed analysis that substantiates this need is illustrated in
Chapter 6 with the various charts, which constitute aggregated data from surveys and
questionnaires. In addition, the demand for convention/conference space is quantified on page
28 with the statement:
“…68.1% of the Respondents chose meeting, conference, convention to describe the main focus of
their event. 13% consider a trade show the main purpose of their event and 11.6% considered
banquets, receptions and parties as the main focus of their event.
This 68.1% figure for conventions and conferences is the market that should be pursued based on
demand; not the trade show or banquets/parties market. The market is clearly too low for the
latter two and the Swiftel is meeting much of the demand for trade shows.
You will have to decide for yourselves if you agree with these conclusions.
The key to quantifying the demand for an expansion project is the data retrieved from the
current and potential clients from surveys and questionnaires. The current Swiftel Center is then
compared to 18 other comparable facilities including two other facilities in Brookings. Chapter 6
contains most of this data and I suggest you carefully examine this data as a tool to concluding
the need for such a facility.
6
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
The table on page 56 is a comprehensive, albeit not all-inclusive, listing of the “lost market
potential” experienced by the Swiftel as a result of not having the necessary facilities. This list
represents substantial economic impact that could have been realized in Brookings. While one
cannot conclude all these events would have come to the Swiftel, it is safe to conclude that at least
half this list represents real potential to have been at the Swiftel if it had their required amenities.
Contrary to earlier reports, the Shamrock Center was included in the analysis as you can see from
the facility comparisons on the tables throughout Chapter 6 and in the appendix. Representatives
of the Shamrock Center have been invited to the work session and I suggest we take this
opportunity to inquire with the owner about the target market of this new facility. From
information on their website, their liquor application, and from a tour of the facility given to Tom
Richter and me by the owner, it is my observation the market of the Shamrock Center is clearly
geared to wedding receptions, banquets, occasional public dining, and large-scale social
gatherings; not large scale conferences and conventions as envisioned in the Swiftel analysis. In
fact, it appears the two projects would actually compliment each other more than they would
compete. The Swiftel has always held a certain number of wedding events and social gatherings
since it opened. To that end, the Shamrock, which is about to open, has decided to compete with
the Swiftel Center, which has been in operation for several years. The Shamrock Center holds
great opportunity to help keep these events in the community instead of forcing events elsewhere
because of a lack of available facilities. There are some very positive and unique opportunities
for joint marketing of the Shamrock and Swiftel centers.
Finally, we should examine the economic impact such an investment can be expected to return. As
a baseline, pages 21-22 describe the economic impact resulting from the Swiftel Center from
2001-2007 as being $25.6 million without a multiplier to $46.1 million with a standard multiplier.
With the expansion to meet the market demand, the economic impact projected over a five year
period grows to $45.2 million without a multiplier, and to $81.47 million with a standard
multiplier.
Unquestionably, this report is not exhaustive and as you discuss its contents, other questions and
issues will arise. Staff stands ready to further research any issues you determine necessary for
further deliberations on this issue. Depending upon your conclusions from this discussion, and if you
decide this issue has merit for further investigation, I would suggest we determine a schedule and
process for future community discussions on the issue before any decisions are made.
Estimated Time (45 minutes)
7
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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. Draft policy for the Government Access Channel and Televised
Meetings.
The following policy is modeled after the City of Sioux Falls’ CityLink Channel 16 policy.
The policy addresses the management of the site and appropriate programming content.
Commencing March 11th, the City Council meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 9
and replayed during the week. Discussion is needed regarding the frequency and hours
for council meeting re-broadcast. Staff has proposed replay one evening and on the
weekend to capture the majority citizens when at home. The meeting digital image will
also be available for viewing on the City of Brookings website.
The length of retention of the council meetings also needs to be discussed. Staff
recommends a 3-6 month range. There is no statutory requirement to retain the meeting
on video or digitally. During that time citizens may request a copy of the image, which
can be provided at a fee of time plus materials.
Action: Request action on policy at a future meeting
Estimated Time (10 minutes)
8
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Policy for Production and Programming of Government Cable Channel 9
City of Brooking, SD
Dated February 19, 2008
Background
Section 611 of the Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to require cable
operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental use. The City of
Brookings has secured a Government Access channel for the purpose of providing high-quality
government access programming in an ongoing effort to inform and educate the citizenry.
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to specify procedures necessary to ensure compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations pertaining to the Government
Access Channel.
2. Definitions:
For the purposes of this policy, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
Endorsement. The term “endorsement” shall mean the act of giving approval of or
support of any issue, candidate, specific person, company, and specific brand
name product or service provider for consumer use.
Government Access Channel. The term “government access channel” shall mean a
channel intended for use by local governmental bodies for informing the
public about what is happening in local government.
Government Access Programming. The term “government access programming” shall
mean any live cablecast, tape-delayed cablecast, pre-produced, interactive
information, or outside-originated programming designed to provide the
Brookings television viewing area with timely, accurate, and complete
government information.
3. Eligible Programming and Program Content
3.1 Modes of Cablecast:
3.1.1 Live Cablecast. Live coverage, principally consisting of City Council, live
call-in shows, and other selected public meetings and events of general
community interest.
3.1.2 Tape-delayed Cablecast: Public meetings and/or events, which are
videotaped in advance for cablecast at a later period, shall be permitted.
These videotaped programs shall adhere to the formatting guidelines in
Section 3.2.
3.1.3 Pre-Produced Programming: Programs produced by the City of Brookings
through a contracted third party. These programs include (but are not
limited to) programs for City departments, issues related to City
government, or with or about groups/committees/boards etc. that are
affiliated with City government or which use public dollars. These programs
could be either live or tape-delayed cablecasts.
3.1.4 Interactive Information Service: Alphanumeric information consisting of
program schedules and public information shall be cablecast in order to
maintain up-to-date schedules and keep viewers abreast of said
9
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
information. This service shall operate during the 24-hour period when
other programs are not scheduled.
3.1.5 Outside-originated Programming: Programs related to municipal, state, or
federal governments, which are produced by an outside source that can be
purchased, rented, or borrowed for cablecast. Also, programs
disseminated through satellite downlinks that are related to municipal,
state, or federal issues may be cablecast.
3.2 Access Policy. Access to Government Cable Channel 9 is limited to city
departments/agencies. Channel 9 is not intended for general public use and is
not a public access channel.
3.2.1 All public meetings of the Brookings City Council are authorized
for cablecast.
3.2.2 Requests for access to Channel 9 by persons other than bona fide City
officials or administrators shall be reviewed for appropriateness by the
Brookings City Clerk or designee.
3.2.3 Billboard information messages may be submitted by any City department
or agency. Messages submitted should be consistent with the policies and
intentions of this policy and shall be cablecast at the discretion of the City
Clerk or designee. Information provided may be edited where necessary
by City Clerk‘s staff to maximize the impact, clarity, and effectiveness of
the message.
3.2.4 Programs that meet the legal definition of obscenity, or which are
defamatory, or which promote commercial or profit-making services,
products, or businesses shall be prohibited.
3.3 Editing Policy. The City Clerk’s Department shall be responsible for the
editing of all programming on Channel 9 and shall be subject to the following:
3.3.1 Any public meeting cablecast on Channel 9, whether live or on videotape,
shall be aired in its entirety, “gavel to gavel,” without editorial comment.
Exceptions to this policy may occur only when editing out possible recesses,
to comply with legal standards of decency, or when technical difficulties
restrict production procedures.
3.3.2 Requests for messages to be included in the bulletin board portion from
sources other than City departments shall be submitted in writing to the City
Clerk’s Department. Editing shall be by the City Clerk’s staff to provide
clarity and maximum utilization of pages. No paid commercial space shall
be allowed.
3.3.3 Cablecast commercialism is discouraged. Production personnel shall get
tight shots of speakers in a manner to exclude commercial banners and
logos wherever feasible. It is further understood that a commercial name
may appear, and Channel 9 cannot control its exclusion, such as hotel
names or other sponsors’ logos on speaker’s podiums, etc.
3.4 Elections. The facilities and resources of the City’s Channel 9 shall not be used for
any advertisements on behalf of a political candidate or ballot measure. Note:
This does not preclude forums which allow the opportunity for all candidates to
appear or proponents and opponents of an issue to be represented; e.g.,
Chamber Government Affairs sponsored debates.
3.5 Endorsements and Underwriting. Channel 9 shall not be used to endorse an issue,
company, or product, with the following exceptions:
10
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
3.5.1. A company or organization may be recognized at the beginning and/or
end of a program for underwriting that specific program.
3.5.2. Public forums on ballot issues where all sides have equal opportunity to
speak may be cablecast.
3.6 Promotions. Promotional announcements for City events shall be permitted over
Channel 9. No promotional announcements for events, charities, or outside
organizations in which the City has no official financial interest or sponsorship shall
be permitted. No commercial oriented promotions shall be considered for
cablecast.
3.7 Warranty. Channel 9, the City of Brookings, their administrators, employees, and
agents do not warrant the accuracy of any information cablecast over Channel 9.
4. Program Scheduling
4.1 New Program Requests. All requests for new programming must be submitted to the
City Clerk’s Department.
4.2 Program Priorities. Airtime priorities on Channel 9 shall be as follows:
1. Local Governmental Body Meetings: Regular City Council and other city boards as
determined. Special Meetings; e.g., State of the City Address, City Budget
Address, City-Hosted Press Conferences, Emergency Management Announcements,
Chamber Sponsored Candidate Debates, etc.
2. Channel 9 Hosted Programs; e.g., live or taped talk shows.
3. Channel 9 Produced Programs; e.g., long- or short-form video programs featuring
City departments, issues relating to City government, or with or about
groups/committees/boards, etc., that are affiliated with City government or which
use public dollars.
4. Non-Channel 9 Produced Programs which further the missions of City departments
and City affiliated organizations; e.g., PSAs for Community Cultural Center,
National Highway Safety Messages, etc.
5. Character generated information regarding City departments.
6. Character generated information regarding City affiliated organizations.
5. Management Rights
5.1 Management of Government Channel. All management and programming of Channel 9
shall be provided by the City Clerk’s Department, City of Brookings.
5.2 Use of Equipment. City-owned video equipment shall be restricted to authorized City
activities, and its use shall be restricted to employees of the City Clerk’s Department
and the Information Technology Department or trained personnel under the direction of
the Clerk or IT Departments. Loan of equipment for personal use or outside use shall not
be permitted.
5.3 Retention and Ownership of Tapes. All digital and videotapes produced by and/or for
the City of Brookings shall be the property of the City. The City shall retain digital and
videotapes of staff-produced programs, meetings, and events for up to one year from
date of broadcast. At the end of that time, the tapes may be reused and the original
material erased, at the discretion of the City.
5.3.1 The digital images and tapes shall not be considered an official record of any
meeting and there shall be no liability for inadvertent erasure or omissions.
11
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
5.3.2 Requests for retention longer than one year should be made in advance of the
one-year period to the City Clerk’s Department and Information Technology
Department.
5.3.3. City produced videotapes may be made available to other stations or channels
for newscasts.
5.3.4 Copies of City Council meetings or other Channel 9 programming may be
purchased for at the videotape fee of ______.
6. Copyright. Programs containing copyrighted materials will be used only if copyright clearance
has been obtained.
7. Decision Making, Oversight, Complaints Review. The Brookings City Clerk, or designee, is
responsible for the production, acquisition, scheduling, and cablecasting of programs on the
channel and for operating the channel facilities.
12
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce
topics.
4. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08, establishing Charges for Collections and Disposal
of Refuse in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street sweeper.
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, authorizing the city to participate in a Title V
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant.
F. Action on Resolution No. 23-08, authorizing the city manager to enter an liquor operating
agreement renewal with David Olson Inc., dba Danny’s.
G. Action on a request from First Bank and Trust to abate 2007 taxes in the amount of
$2,000 for Lots 13-14, Block 13, Second Addition (vacant lot).
H. Action to appoint Dick Smith as the Assistant City Attorney.
I. Action on Resolution No. 24-08, to Change the Functional Classification of Certain Streets
in the City of Brookings.
J. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 26th for a goal setting retreat.
K. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 18th with the County Commission.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 11-08 - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental
Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The
Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: March 25th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
8. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an
Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block
20th Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 07-08 - An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the
Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in
Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-
T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
12. Presentation of Annual Financial Report to Council.
Action: Informational
13. Adjourn.
13
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
5A. Upcoming Council Meetings
** 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.
March 25th
5:00 pm
Project Insight Reports from Council Members
Liquor Application Presentations
Hospital Campus Expansion Plans (unconfirmed)
Annual Reports from City Volunteer Boards, Committees & Commissions (informational)
6:00 pm
Consent:
Action on Resolution No. ___ - appointing election judges
Action on Ordinance No. 11-08 - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A
Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For
Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Action on Resolution ___, awarding bids for the Downtown Streetscape Project (3/18 bid
letting).
Action on a Fixed Base Operator Agreement
Action on a Request for Building Upon the Public Right-of-Way from Donna Ramsay, dba
dhr Design Services LTD, at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota.
14
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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.
5B. Council Invites & Obligations
Date
Day
Event
Time
Location
March 8-12 Fri-Tuesday National League of Cities Washington DC
March 17-21 Mon-Friday Board of Equalization
Hearings
Commencing Monday.
Will attempt to finish in
one day if possible
City Hall
March 18th
Tuesday
Joint meeting with County
Commission
4:00 pm
City Hall
March 24th
Monday
BEDC Annual Meeting
Governor Speaking
Evening
Unconfirmed
March 25th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
City Hall
March 26th
Wednesday
City Council Goal Setting
Retreat
9 am to 5 pm
Swiftel Center
March 27th
Thursday
Student Senate – Candidates
Forum
Noon
SDSU /
Unconfirmed
April 2nd
Wednesday
SDML District 2 Mtg
6 pm social
7 pm dinner
8 pm program
Elkton Community Center
April 8th
Tuesday
Election
April 10th
Thursday
Council Meeting
Canvass Ballots
4:00 pm
City Hall
April 15th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
City Hall
April 29th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
City Hall
May 13th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
City Hall
May 18-21
ISCS Conference
May 27th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
City Hall
15
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce
topics.
6. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for
action at this meeting. A motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A
majority vote is required.
16
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08 - establishing Charges for Collections and Disposal
of Refuse in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street sweeper.
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant.
F. Action on Resolution No. 23-08, authorizing the city manager to enter an liquor operating
agreement renewal with David Olson Inc., dba Danny’s.
G. Action on a request from First Bank and Trust to abate 2007 taxes in the amount of
$2,000 for Lots 13-14, Block 13, Second Addition (vacant lot).
H. Action to appoint Dick Smith as the Assistant City Attorney.
I. Action on Resolution No. 24-08, to Change the Functional Classification of Certain Streets
in the City of Brookings
J. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 26th for a goal setting retreat.
K. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 18th with the County Commission.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 11-08 - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental
Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The
Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: March 25th
** 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.
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
8. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an
Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block
20th Street South).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
9. Ordinance No. 07-08 - An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment in the
Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in
Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane)
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
10. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-
T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
12. Presentation of Annual Financial Report to Council.
Action: Informational
13. Adjourn.
17
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08, establishing Charges for Collections
and Disposal of Refuse in the City of Brookings, South Dakota..
D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street sweeper.
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, authorizing the city to participate in a
Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant.
F. Action on Resolution No. 23-08, authorizing the city manager to enter
an liquor operating agreement renewal with David Olson Inc., dba
Danny’s.
G. Action on a request from First Bank and Trust to abate 2007 taxes in
the amount of $2,000 for Lots 13-14, Block 13, Second Addition
(vacant lot).
H. Action to appoint Dick Smith as the Assistant City Attorney.
I. Action on Resolution No. 24-08, to Change the Functional Classification
of Certain Streets in the City of Brookings.
J. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 26th for a goal
setting retreat.
K. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 18th with the
County Commission.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
18
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the City Council January 22, January 29, February 12 and February 26 meetings are
enclosed for council review and action.
19
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
January 22, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 4:00 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Ryan Brunner (via phone at 5:13 p.m.), Tim Reed, Ginger Thomson, and Tom Bezdichek.
Council member Mike Bartley was absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve
Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
4:00 p.m. Session
Airport Board. Deputy Mayor Tim Reed chaired this portion of the meeting. The City Council met
in joint session with members of the Brookings Airport Board (Lynn Riedesel, Jim Bailey, Jeff
Boulware, and Harry Forsyth) to discuss the following issues: Airport hangars, an update on the
Fixed Base Operator RFP process, a discussion regarding runway length, airport leases, update
on communication/information flow and other issues.
Hangars - All the hangars (23) at the airport are movable. An on-site move would cost $4/5 per
square foot. The cost would at least double for an off site move, depending on size and
condition. Sizes vary from 1,500 to 7,600 sq. ft. and doesn’t include the FBO building, which is
30,000 sq. ft. Some are heated and some have water and sewer. There was discussion who
would be financially responsible to move the structures.
There was also concern about the condition and it may be better to not allow older structures to
be moved onto a new airport site. It was suggested that in the future the city own all the hangars
and lease them. There was concern from airport members what restrictions might result with city-
owned hangars. Bailey agreed that if the city builds a new airport, it should have nice looking
hangars and not a hodgepodge of old buildings. Jeff Boulware said the City of Willmar, MN,
only moved hangars in good condition. He clarified that the move was a short distance and the
hangars were smaller.
FBO RFP Update - Randy Hanson, owner and President of Pheasant’s Fury, is providing
temporary FBO service and updated the council on the RFP process. He has talked to 12
different parties regarding providing service and hasn’t made any progress. He appeared
before the Airport Board to consider entering into a long-term agreement with Pheasant’s Fury
Aviation instead of just a real estate holding company, which would become the FBO. If he
pursues this route, he plans to seek a 5-year agreement with Phillips Petroleum for Avgas and jet
fuel which will enable him to attract drop-in pilots.
Runway Length – There was consensus from the Airport Board members that the runway length
should be longer to meet the current and future aviation needs and to provide safety.
Communication – The City Council wants to provide the Airport Board with more information and
obtain their input. Members were encouraged to attend Council meetings and will be provided
the agenda packet.
Airport Leases – Lease rates are set by the Airport Board and signed by the city manager.
5:00 p.m. WORK SESSION. Mayor Munsterman presided over the remainder of the meeting.
20
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Traffic Modeling Study for 34th Avenue/20th Street Overpass Improvement Project.
Weldon reported that the South Dakota Department of Transportation staff had completed their
traffic study of Highway 14 between Interstate 29 and 34th Avenue. The study results showed
that two locations met the warrants to install a traffic signal, which are the east ramps of
Interstate-29 and the 32nd Avenue intersection. DOT staff will be starting design and
programming the funds to install these signals.
Several businesses in Brookings interested in the traffic situation in eastern Brookings have met to
discuss the traffic situation. Banner Associates of Brookings and HDR of Sioux Falls are assisting
with developing a scope of work and estimated project costs for this area. The potential
improvement projects could include paving 34th Avenue from Prince Drive to the south,
approximately to Highway 324, a new overpass over I-29 at 20th Street South, and an interstate
off-ramp at 32nd Street South. A scope for the traffic study is being developed by HDR, as well
as the cost for the study. This project would be eligible for federal funding and getting this
model is the first step to funding eligibility.
(Ryan Brunner arrived via phone at 5:13 p.m.)
The next step will be to return to the City Council for approval to move forward on the study and
make a commitment on the funding.
Draft Campaign Finance Ordinances Revisions. Per the request of the Council, City Attorney
Steve Britzman prepared a draft ordinance for Council review that would revise the current
Ordinance to include ballot questions. Britzman said the new ordinance is consistent with the
revised state law. Currently, the city’s campaign ordinance doesn’t require ballot committees to
file. This would now require those organizations to submit financial reports. A recent example
was the referred railroad issue. No reports were filed with the state because one of the ballot
committees didn’t feel that their organization met that definition. This ordinance broadened the
definition and will bring in those types.
ACTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to place this ordinance on the
action meeting agenda for council action. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Project Insight Update. Mayor Munsterman reported that 14 communities were identified in the
project. A questionnaire has been prepared and he will send these communities an invitation to
participate in the survey. Council members will be asked to contact 1 or 2 communities and
report back to the full group on their findings during a work session.
I-29 Corridor Project Update. Mayor Munsterman updated the Council that he, President
Chicoine, Al Heuton, and Teresa McKnight, are in the process of lining up a big meeting with a
number of east river mayors, economic development staff, and city administrators to discuss an I-
29 Economic Development Corridor. The hope is to have a task force formed out of this group to
further pursue the idea’s viability. This would be an economic development/promotional group
promoting regionalism and competitive advantages along the I-29 corridor. He noted there are
20-30 other successful corridor type relationships in the United States.
Sioux Falls Tour. Mayor Munsterman reported that Sioux Falls Mayor Dave Munson has invited
the City Council on a tour related to planning and city development.
21
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Council Goal Setting Retreat / Town Hall Meeting. On June 5, 2007, the Brookings City Council
held their annual goal setting retreat. One goal the Council identified under “Governance” was
to hold town hall meetings on key issues in the Fall 2007 and again in Spring 2008 to seek input
on the budget process.
The last town hall meeting was based on a quality of life survey facilitated by Donna Hess and
her students at SDSU. However, the intent of the next meeting would be to solicit input on the
budget.
Thornes will contact Council members to schedule a council goal setting sometime this spring.
Legislative updates. The liquor bill, SB 126, will be in committee and Brunner will be attending.
Munsterman reported that he had met with Todd Meierhenry and local legislators on the
proposed Transportation District Bill. In earlier conversations, the City Council approved moving
ahead with writing a bill that would broaden the authority of the transportation district to include
a taxing authority. This would be formed by joint ventures and the money could be used for rail
and road improvements. The bill was submitted to the legislature.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager responded to questions pertaining to the action
items on the agenda.
City Clerk Reports. Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, provided a briefing on future agenda
items and upcoming invitations and obligations.
Reed will be attending the National League of Cities conference in March and hopes to speak
with our Congressional Delegation members. He requested time on a future work session to
identify what topics he should report on.
City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Reed commented that it has become increasingly difficult to find candidates for city boards. He noted
that the Brookings Hospital/Health Systems is not just a city facility, but is also regional. He requested
the Council consider modifying the ordinance to allow for city appointed board members to live outside
the city limits. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to direct the City Attorney to modify
the Hospital Board Ordinance to allow for city appointments to live outside city limits, but within
Brookings County. All present voted yes; motion carried.
(15 minute recess)
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to approve the consent agenda
which included:
A. Agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Minutes from the December 4, December 11, 2007, and
January 8, 2008 Meetings.
C. Action to approve Resolution No. 10-08, amending I-1R Site Plan on Lots 3B and 4 of
Block 2, Insbrook Park Addition.
RESOLUTION NO. 10-08
I-1R SITE PLAN
22
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
WHEREAS, BOPM (Quality Tool) is proposing a major expansion of their manufacturing
facility in the Industrial I-1R District, and
WHEREAS, the site plan presented will require the following variances:
1. Establish a lot coverage of 29% for buildings on this parcel. Twenty-five percent (25%) is
the maximum allowed.
2. Build 36 feet form the rear lot line. A 50 foot rear yard setback is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota to approve the I-1R Site Plan on Lot 3B and all of Lot 4, Block 2, Insbrook Park Addition.
D. Action on appointments to the Brookings Transportation Board: Sam Nelson, SDSU Student
Assoc, Jerry Raabe, SD Dept. of Vocational Rehab., Terrell Spence, ADVANCE, Art
Conners, Senior Activity Center, Teresa McKnight, Citizen-at-large (terms expire
1/1/2009); Roger DeGroot, Brookings Public School System, Michael Forgy, East Central
Mental Health, Robb Rasmussen, Downtown Brookings Inc., Dean Kattelmann, SDSU Admin.
(terms expire 1/1/2010); Jeff Weldon, City of Brookings, Dennis Falken, County of
Brookings, Rob Jones, Brookings Health Systems, Kurt Cogswell, Brookings Committee for
People who have Disabilities (terms expire 1/1/2011).
E. Action to approve Resolution No. 08-08, Directing Preparation Of Assessment Roll,
Dividing Assessments Into Installments, And Providing For The Collection Thereof For
Sidewalk Assessment, Project 2007-01SWR (2007 Sidewalk Repairs).
RESOLUTION NO. 08-08
Resolution Directing Preparation Of Assessment Roll, Dividing Assessments Into Installments, And
Providing For The Collection Thereof For Sidewalk Assessment, Project 2007-01SWR (2007
Sidewalk Repairs).
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. More than twenty days have elapsed since the adoption and publication of Resolution 50-07,
a Resolution Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks for Sidewalk Assessment
Project No. 2007-01SWR. The referendum has not been invoked, and no written protests against
the making of said improvement have been filed with the City Manager.
2. A contract for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR has been duly executed, and the
City Council is authorized to levy special assessments pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9-43,
SDCL 1967, as amended.
3. The City Engineer has caused an estimate of the expense of the work to be made and filed in
City Hall showing the total cost of said improvement as follows:
Contract price $13,345.84
Engineering, inspection, fiscal,
legal expense, publication 390.86
Total Expense $13,736.70
4. The total cost of said improvement shall be paid as follows:
City Repair Costs $ 6,440.59
Assessable costs $ 6,905.25
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 sidewalk constituting said improvement.
6. The assessment shall be divided into five (5) equal annual installments for all amounts over
$300.00. For amounts of $300.00 or less, the entire assessment shall be due.
7. Unless paid to the City in advance of maturity, the assessments shall be collected by the City
Manager in accordance with the procedure for Plan One in Chapter 9-43, SDCL 1967, as
amended.
23
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
8. The interest rate to be borne by the unpaid installments of the special assessment is ten percent
(10%).
F. Action to approve Resolution No. 09-08, Directing Preparation Of Assessment Roll,
Dividing Assessments Into Installments, And Providing For The Collection Thereof For
Street Assessment, Project 2007-07STA.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-08
RESOLUTION DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL, DIVIDING ASSESSMENTS INTO
INSTALLMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION THEREOF FOR STREET ASSESSMENT
PROJECT 2007-07STA
(Alley from 8th Ave. to 9th Ave. between 4th St. and 5th St.)
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 33-07,
Resolution of Necessity for Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA. 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. 2007-07STA 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 $18,019.42
Engineering, inspection, fiscal,
legal expense and publication 1,083.58
$19,103.00
4. The total cost of said improvement shall be paid as follows:
Assessable costs $19,103.00
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%).
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Presentation to the Dr. Martin Luther King Day Contest Winners. This year’s theme was “A
View from the Mountaintop.” Winners: Grades K-1 – Poster: 1st Place Sophia Lim; 2nd Place Dani
Buschenfeld; 3rd Place Carolyn Hieb; Grades 2-3 – Poster: 1st Place Elizabeth Syhre; 2nd Place
Rachel Smart; 3rd Place Jackie Maxwell; Grades 4-5 – Poster: 1st Place Kali Nordbye; 2nd Place
Gerald Maxwell; 3rd Place Abbey Kephart; Middle School – Essay: 1st Place Morgan Minnicks; 2nd
Place Yossry Mohamed; 3rd Place Damon Bayer; High School – Essay: 1st Place Alyssa Johnson; 2nd
Place Shelon Surat; 3rd Place Chelsey Dunkle.
Request from the Brookings Housing Opportunity Conference. The organizers of the Brookings
Housing Opportunity Conference asked the city to help co-sponsor the February 9th Conference.
They are requesting $500.00. Barb Kjellson-Anderson was present to make the request and
respond to questions. ACTION: A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Thomson, to
fund the event with $500.00 from the City of Brookings. All present voted yes; motion carried.
24
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 01-08 – Zoning. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 01-08,
an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a boardinghouse use. Public
Hearing: February 12, 2008
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 05-08 – Zoning. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 05-08,
an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a drive-in food service in the Business
B-1 District. Public Hearing: February 12, 2008
Ordinance No. 02-08 – Budget Amendment. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by
Reed, to approve Ordinance No. 02-08, an Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A
Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional
Funds For The Operation Of The City. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Ordinance No. 03-08 – Zoning. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 03-08, an
Ordinance on a petition to rezone the north 1,550 feet of the west 1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section
2-T109N-R50W, excluding Outlot C in the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ and Lot D of the Christie
Addition from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-2 and R-3 Districts. No public comments
were made. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thomson, to approve Ordinance No.
03-08. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Ordinance No. 04-08 – Zoning. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 04-08, an
Ordinance amending the zoning ordinance pertaining to maintenance buildings on lots in certain
business districts. No public comments were made. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by
Reed, to approve Ordinance No. 04-08. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Airport Alternative by HNTB. Deputy Mayor Tim Reed presided over this portion of the meeting.
The following individuals were present to provide the Dual Track Process Update to the Council:
Andy Olson and Greg Albjerg from HNTB, Bob Babcock from Helms & Assoc., Tom Schauer,
Patricia Dressler, and Steve Obenauer from the FAA, and Wayne Nelson and Dave Anderson
from SDDOT. The following presentation outline was provided:
1) Action Requested (Proceed with either Dual Track EA or EA for new alternative)
2) New Alternative Refresher
3) Airport Activity and Runway Length Needs Update
4) Recommendation
5) Next Steps and Overall Project Status Update (Environmental Specialists Status and
Schedule)
The action requested of the Council to decide to proceed with an EA for the two Dual Track
alternatives or an EA for new alternative.
The recommendation is based on the following data. Jet traffic has increased significantly over
the last three years (Jet activity in 2007 was the same as that forecast for 2015 in the Master
Plan). Many of the jets using the airport need a longer runway to take off at maximum weights
(Less than half are accommodated by the existing length.). The new alternative does not allow for
a longer runway. Therefore, the consultants recommend that the City not pursue the new
alternative but instead continue with an EA for the two Dual Track alternatives.
The new alternative would result in the Crosswind Runway being realigned to resolve intersection.
25
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
The Main Runway would remain at 5,231’ and cannot be lengthened. This alternative would
resolve the RPZ problems by raising minimums and purchasing one property. It would also
require the purchase of approximately 60 acres of land.
The consultants provided an airport activity update. The goal of the update was to determine
runway length needs based on the most current flight information available. The airport does not
have a control tower, so no one knows exact flight totals. However, flights flying under a flight
plan are recorded in an FAA database. The vast majority of jets file a flight plan. So, the
consultants looked at flight plan records from 2001–2007 to determine the number of jets using
the airport. However, the database does not go back any further. The trend is towards more jet
flights, especially in last four years with over 1,400 flights in 7 years.
The five most frequent jets using the Brookings Airport are the Cessna 560 – Citation, Cessna 550
– Citation, Cessna 525 – Citation, BeechJet 400A, and Dassault Falcon 50. The five jets
illustrated in their presentation accounted for 45% of total jet flights over the five-year period.
A Runway Length Analysis was provided, meaning what does the jet activity increase mean for
runway length needs? Determining specific aircraft runway length needs is a complex process
and depends on many variables such as general aircraft performance characteristics,
temperature, cargo weight, distance being traveled, aircraft settings, and regulations under which
aircraft are flying. The FAA has developed a guidance document - Advisory Circular 150/5325-
4B “Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design” (July 2005). In order to use the FAA
guidance, an airport must show that it has or will have 500 annual flights of a specific aircraft or
group of aircraft. The question was asked, based on current jet flight trends, when will Brookings
reach 500 annual jet flights? A graph illustrating a five year planning period trend assuming
14% growth rate of the last seven years continues, indicated that the 500 threshold would be
reached by 2010 and reach 695 by year 2012. With a five year planning period trend
assuming growth rate falls to 7% per year over the next five years, the threshold would be
reached in 2012. Therefore, the FAA runway length planning guidance for jets can be applied to
Brookings.
The FAA runway length guidance results in a recommended length of 6,540 feet. This is similar to
the Master Plan recommendation of 6,500 feet. They are evaluating a 6,500 foot runway in the
EA. Their recommendation is to not pursue the new alternative because it does not allow for a
longer runway and to continue with the EA for the Dual Track Alternatives.
If the City chooses to continue with the Dual Track EA, the purpose statement becomes:
Dual Track EA Purpose Statement - The purposes of the project are to develop an airport: That
will resolve the deficiencies of the existing airport such that the airport is eligible for continued
state and federal funding, that will provide the facilities needed to meet the future demand
identified in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, including: 6,000-ft runway with sufficient area
to expand to a 6,500-ft. runway in the future, and the facilities that will allow the airport to
remain operational during at least 95% of wind conditions and provide approach minimums of
200-ft and ½-mile visibility during inclement weather.
The consultants provided a status and schedule update on the overall project. For the
Environmental Specialists Status: the Wildlife Hazard Assessment study nearing completion; the
Wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and historic studies are underway, and the
26
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
archeological study was delayed until snow melts and ground thaws. This has resulted in a delay
to the overall schedule.
Task Estimated
Days/Step
Estimated
Delivery
Date
Brookings decides whether to continue dual track EA or do EA for new
alternative
1/22/08
Environmental specialists complete wetland determinations, cultural surveys,
endangered species survey
4/15/08
Consultant Prepares Draft EA & submits to FAA & Brookings 5/19/08
FAA & Brookings comments back to Consultant 30 6/18/08
Consultant Revises Draft EA & Submits to FAA & Brookings 12 6/30/08
FAA & Brookings comments back to Consultant 16 7/16/08
Final Draft EA distributed, start of 45-day comment period 16 8/1/08
Public Hearing (notice published 30 days prior to hearing) 34 9/4/08
End of Draft EA 45-day comment period 15 9/15/08
Consultant prepares responses to comments, revises EA and submits to FAA &
Brookings
15 9/30/08
Council meeting to pick preferred alternative 28 10/28/08
Consultant prepares draft of Final EA and submits to FAA and Brookings 14 11/11/08
FAA & Brookings comments back to Consultant 14 11/25/08
Consultant revises draft of Final EA & FONSI/ROD public notice 7 12/2/08
FAA & Brookings Final Review & Comments on EA (includes full legal review) 45 1/16/09
Consultant revises & submits Final EA to Brookings, FAA 14 1/30/09
FAA approves Final EA and prepares FONSI/ROD 31 3/2/09
Consultant prints and distributes Final EA and FONSI/ROD 37 4/8/09
Soonest FAA may issue Grant 30 5/8/09
Italics text – City and FAA review
Bold text – Decision points/Public Hearings
Questions / Comments
The question was asked when the concept of a new airport alternative surfaced. Bob Babcock
said it was when former airport manager Patrick Dame was here, but clarified that the issue
would have come up no matter who was here due to all the obstructions. The FAA sent the city a
letter requiring the airport come into compliance. Regardless, the city would have needed a
Master Plan very soon.
It was noted that Council Member Bezdichek’s alignment proposal from a few months ago ended
up being very close to the new onsite alternative considered by the consultants. The biggest
difference between the two was the 20-year window showing the hangars and apron being
constructed.
The Master Plan runway design is not for commercial service and has no bearing on their
recommendation. Nor does SDSU’s Division I status.
The consultants didn’t have any information on who owns the jets that are landing at the Brookings
Airport. The database doesn’t include that information.
The database also doesn’t capture any airplanes bypassing Brookings because the runway isn’t
long enough. Typically those planes go somewhere else.
27
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Most flights are at 75% of fuel load which would require 6,500 feet. A 60% load requires a
minimum 5,500 foot runway. A 90% load would require 7,000 feet. Planning for 75-80% useful
loads would accommodate the majority of the fleet wanting to use the airport.
The consultants reviewed the estimated costs of the alternatives. Detailed estimates are available
in the City Clerk’s Office and on the city website.
The runway realignment on the existing site estimated total project cost is $13,000,000. Total
estimated FAA and state participation is $10,456,000, for a total estimated city share of
$2,544,000.
The new on-site alternative estimated total project cost is $12,900,000. Total estimated FAA and
state participation is $10,358,000, for a total estimated city share of $2,542,000.
A new airport total estimated project cost is $23,245,000. Total estimated FAA and state
participation is $13,200,000, for a total estimated city share of $10,045,000. The land sales of
Phase I ($4,836,000) and Phase II ($2,670,000) would bring the city’s share down to
$2,539,000.
The consultants said the city will need to plan for a $2.5-3 Million expenditure sometime in the
next ten years, regardless of which plan is selected. It was clarified that all these estimates are
in “today’s dollars” and inflation must be accounted for. Babcock will meet with city officials to
keep their capital improvement plan and its numbers updated.
Bezdichek asked when the 10 year clock starts? Greg Albjerg said it would be 2012 before the
process is completed and the time started. As to the question of flights to justify the runway
length, we’re close to or over the 500 mark by that time to justify expenditure of funds.
Thomson asked if it would really be 10 years beyond 2012 for an airport to be done. Babcock
said with appraisals, design and land acquisitions, 10 years isn’t unrealistic. He also noted that
the City wouldn’t get the entire $10,000,000 at one time. An airport is built in phases.
Tom Schauer clarified that no matter what decision, it would be 10 years and at least $10
Million. The city will have to deal with the issue, citing pavement condition reports. It’s better to
handle it now since there’s money available.
Thomson asked if the FAA would still give the city money if the city chose not to do anything other
than patching. Schauer said the asphalt condition is at a point that the city is forced to do
something and the other compliance issues must be resolved. In order to get funding, the city
must address those issues. A solution to the compliance issues is part of that funding package.
Bezdichek noted that in many instances, the City of Brookings is giving industrial land as an
incentive to attract an industry. He asked if it would be a consideration for the city to use the
land for affordable housing. Babcock said appraisals would be needed when a city gives away
something that was paid for with Federal funds. Schauer said the Federal Government would
expect like value from the city for the land if the city opted to give it away.
Babcock commented that it would cost $1 million to move the ILS system and the runway lights are
20 years old.
28
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
The consultants noted that the purpose and needs statement in the environmental assessment
process is very important. All funding requests are judged against this statement. When a
funding proposal is reviewed the FAA will determine how well the plan meets with the purpose
and needs statement.
Thomson asked for clarification on who is displayed with the new onsite alternative and with the
other onsite alternative.
Andy Olson said with the new alternative, one business would be displayed and the city would
purchase the land. With the other alternative there would be different threshold placement
options which would effect specific land owners. The variables would include wetlands, etc., and
this won’t be known until the full environmental assessment is completed. He noted that two of the
homes are no longer impacted due to the crosswind runway shifting. One house would definitely
remain (Pitts property) and some farmland (Locker’s). In a land acquisition process, lines can
change depending on easement acquisitions. Airports never go north and south and there are
triangulation issues. This proposal has taken the minimum amount of property. It was clarified
that one home is affected and multiple property owners of land.
Robert Lees, trustee for one of the properties, reported that his client isn’t interested in selling it at
all and feels that area should be housing.
Igor Sergeev asked how it can move to the north with the railroad. Andy Olson said the
crosswind doesn’t have as precise approaches at that end and they would be able to move closer
to the railroad and have the slope clear.
Thomson asked if the homes in the development south of 8th Street South would not be affected if
the city selected that alternative. Yes, that is correct.
Marie Kurtenbach-Cooper commented wetlands mitigation requires the replacement of two acres
for every one acre removed and asked what the estimated costs of wetlands mitigation would be.
Babcock said they don’t know what the costs will be yet.
Reed noted that the completed EA will help fine tune all the numbers.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bezdichek, seconded by Brunner, to continue with the
environmental assessment for the full dual track alternatives with runway alignment on the existing
site. All present voted yes, except Munsterman abstained, motion carried.
ACTION: A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Whaley, to adopt the following purpose
statement: Dual Track Environmental Assessment Purpose Statement - The purposes of the project
are to develop an airport: That will resolve the deficiencies of the existing airport such that the
airport is eligible for continued state and federal funding, that will provide the facilities needed
to meet the future demand identified in the 2006 Airport Master Plan Update, including: 6,000-ft
runway with sufficient area to expand to a 6,500-ft. runway in the future, and the facilities that
will allow the airport to remain operational during at least 95% of wind conditions and provide
approach minimums of 200-ft and ½-mile visibility during inclement weather.
29
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Public comments:
Igor Sergeev urged the council to take safety into consideration as the most important issue and he
didn’t feel the current airport was safe. A longer runway is needed.
Randy Hansen, temporary FBO provider, agreed and thinks it’s appropriate to drop the new onsite
alternative and a longer runway would better serve the community’s needs.
Duane Bymers said the council was moving in the right direction.
Closed public hearing.
All present voted yes; except Munsterman abstained; motion carried.
The next step will be a public comment and review in August 2008.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
City of Brookings
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
30
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
January 29, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 2:00 p.m., at
the 1921 building in joint session with the Brookings County Commission. The following city
members were present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley, Mike Bartley,
Ryan Brunner (2:09 p.m.), Tim Reed, Tom Bezdichek (2:25 p.m.), and Ginger Thomson. City
Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also
present.
The group discussed the following issues in a work session setting: Brookings County Rail Authority
(Mission – improving safety and rail service); Update on Transportation District Bill (Rail Corridor
TIF Project); Future Growth Needs for the Brookings Region: 34th Avenue Improvement Project,
Overpass and Interchange Plans - DOT Discussion and Strategy Update, Innovation Campus
Infrastructure Improvements, County Industrial Park; and Joint Space Collaboration: Creating
Opportunities for Efficiency. No action was taken by either governing body.
Brookings County Rail Authority. Mayor Munsterman and County Commissioner Don Larson
met and have developed a concept for review and discussion. The Rail Authority would draw
upon broad representation for a county-wide regional approach. The proposal would create a
Rail Authority with regional representation for a total of 11 representatives: Brookings County
(3), City of Brookings (3), Township (1), Volga (1), Elkton (1), Aurora (1), and Arlington (1).
Munsterman asked States Attorney Mark Kratochvil for his opinion if the current Rail Authority
could be used to carry out this mission. He suggested the following draft mission statement for a
Rail Authority: “Promotion and Development of a comprehensive long term rail safety and service
plan.” Kratochvil said the current Rail Authority could be modified to provide for involvement of
the City as well as other involvements of the county. The City could become a member of the Rail
Authority.
Munsterman said this idea has a lot to do with the former Railroad Ad Hoc Committee. They
identified collaboration as a mission and goal to pursue.
Thomson asked what the boundaries would be. Kratochvil responded that it would be a
Brookings County Rail Authority. Larson noted that the overall goal is the fact that safety is an
issue but not just for the county or city, but includes small towns and townships. This proposal
would erase some of those boundary concepts and get everyone working together as a county to
accomplish specific goals.
Dennis Falken, County Commissioner, asked why the proposal had three city and three county
representatives and only one from the other cities.
(Brunner arrived at 2:09 pm)
Larson said nothing is etched in stone and is presented for discussion. The goal is to have
representation for everyone in and outside of Brookings city limits.
31
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Whaley asked if the entities would open it up for applications to be on the Rail Authority.
Munsterman said the city appointments would follow the usual appointments process. The other
governing bodies would appoint their representatives.
Reed asked what the next step was. Larson said the County and City of Volga was the original
Rail Authority. The Rail Authority would need to meet and agree to expand their membership.
Kratochvil said the agreement could be amended to provide for additional
members/representation.
Bartley asked what capacity the existing Rail Authority has serviced, specifically, what projects
has it worked on. Falken said the SD Soybean Processors plant in Volga. The City of Volga
borrowed funds from the railroad fund for the spur between Brookings and Volga. Another
project is the expansion of the SD Soybean Processors Plant infrastructure for rail car storage and
biodiesel facility.
Bartley said if the Rail Authority’s scope is expanded, it would now include safety which wasn’t
really there before. Its mission has been infrastructure projects. The Rail Authority also has taxing
authority and he doesn’t know what it has in place right now. Is that property tax only? Does
state law allow or prevent sales tax use on a Rail Authority? Kratochvil said the Regional Rail
Authority doesn’t have taxing authority.
Bartley asked if there are any joint issues with respect to property taxes in any cities or townships
involved. All are referable if using property taxes as a funding mechanism. Kratochvil cited a
limitation that the Rail Authority cannot levy taxes without the approval of the government
members.
Bartley said it will be important as the mission statement is developed to understand the Rail
Authority’s past projects and that those haven’t been related to safety or a service plan.
Larson said that two rail authorities aren’t needed. We should have one for the city and one for
the county. It’s best to erase the borders and get everyone involved.
Munsterman said the strategy at addressing a Rail Authority is to create a fair process. The
proposed Transportation District Bill (SB183) started out as an idea to capture enough funds if
long-term strategy for rail safety demands a lot of money (i.e. depressed rail, bypass). The idea
was to create a Tax Increment Finance District along the entire corridor to capture funds in the rail
development process. The scope of the bill changed because cities are losing road funding, so it
was written to include rail and roads. Munsterman noted that SB183 passed out of committee on
a 6/1 due pass vote and is expected on the Senate floor sometime the week of Feb. 7th.
Synopsis of the bill:
• Provides local governments the ability to elect to use a tool to solve funding issues pertaining
to transportation (rail and road):
o Federal and State DOT funds are ‘drying up’
o Future funding availability will be questionable
o Addition of Air transportation was suggested by Arne Brown
• Allows for the expansion of the district across political boundaries addressing a wide range of
needs across the state
o Rural communities need road improvements
32
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
o Urban communities are expanding and need new roads
• Flexibility provides a wide range of local projects: road, rail or transportation services, etc.
(Section 1.11)
• Elected positions serve on the district governing board
• Citizens within the district have the power to refer any tax measure
• District must establish a five year capital improvement plan, prioritizing projects which are
meaningful to the region
o Promoting a higher level of efficiency of funds used on the local level
• Revenue neutral to the state as a whole; and may be argued it will lessen the burden on the
State DOT funds by allowing local control of prioritizing and funding the needed projects
• A much needed tool for communities like Brookings and Pierre – communities who have serious
safety and quality of life challenges with the rail expansion. This would provide a strong
revenue source for large projects; such as a bypass – again, the people locally would be in
control of making that decision.
Larson said the general idea was okay, but it must be clear so as not to create another layer.
Citizens and local governments must be able to understand it. He wants to prevent entities being
confused on who has jurisdiction.
(Bezdichek arrived 2:25 pm)
Bartley said both proposals serve the same function and we could end up with conflicts or
overlap. One entity may tax and it’s referred; the other entity taxes and isn’t referred.
Munsterman said he posed the same question to Todd Meierhenry who drafted the bill.
Bartley was concerned that two funding sources for public benefit would end up as a losing
proposition. Munsterman said this is in the planning stages. A new bill takes time, possibly two to
three years.
Future Growth Needs. Munsterman reviewed a draft proposal for a 34th Avenue and 20th Street
Overpass Project to improve traffic flow and safety to the Industrial Park. It would consist of a
3-mile extension of 34th Avenue south, an overpass on 20th Street, and an interchange. A traffic
study would be necessary to qualify for funding. HDR Engineering out of Sioux Falls has
submitted a proposal for study. The State Department of Transportation is updating their traffic
lighting plan for 2009. A consultant has been hired by BEDC to help move this project along.
Dennis Micko, Banner Enginering, has done the preliminary work on this project working with a
group East of I-29 organized by Al Kurtenbach, Daktronics, who recognizes the traffic problems.
The survey data found 2,500-3,000 employees per day creating traffic problems on off-ramps
of I-29, which results in motorists not being able to get off of I-29 at exit #132. The focus of the
study has been to solve the problems the manufacturers have and also to look at the bigger
picture. Micko said the community has talked about a 32nd Street South interchange for years,
but it’s not even on the state’s 10 year plan. There are discussions with the DOT looking at
correcting the current traffic problem with short-term solutions and longer range options.
However, he thinks those options such as signals at the I-29 off-ramp or 32nd Avenue are band-
aid solutions. The logical connection for residents on the west side is a 20th Street overpass. A
traffic study will be needed regardless of how we move forward. The reason for preparing the
33
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
document is to have something to show to the players. This document can be used in conjunction
with the traffic study.
Weldon said the estimated cost for a traffic study from HDR is $138,500. It may be possible to
reduce the project scope and reduce the cost. The City would take any partners in helping fund
this study. Council review of this item is on February 12th.
Falken said there has been talk about an overpass for 10 years. With the extension of 34th to
32nd, would that affect the possibility of something on 20th Street South if it fixed the issue or
made access on 34th? Micko said there are differing opinions. The goal is to connect 34th to
32nd, improve the road east and provide residents other options.
Falken noted that was a township road. Micko said projects are bumped by the state every
year based on need and we have a documented need. Falken followed up saying if the city
doesn’t have a study we can’t get on the list.
Munsterman said the city will need help with these transportation issues (an overpass, 34th
Avenue). Micko noted that the first phase would be hard surfacing 20th Street to 32nd.
Larson noted two major fundamental issues: limited resources (service & providing better service)
and safety (traffic problems east of I-29). There are several projects with critical needs and the
County has limited resources. Safety is the real issue, which involves both entities of government.
Micko noted that it would be a long shot to get “earmark” money.
Whaley asked what the estimated cost would be for all four projects. Micko said estimated cost
for all four is $12,500,000. The interchange would be $6M today.
Research Park Infrastructure/Loop project.
Munsterman introduced Teresa McKnight to speak on this topic. McKnight distributed a proposal
with four options for consideration. In order to recruit and attract business, the innovation campus
needs infrastructure in place.
Scenario #1: Current Status – double roadway off 22nd Avenue to roundabout and extending to
Innovation Center Building entrance. Includes all utilities to Innovation Center Building. Includes
utilities only (water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, gas, telephone and data) to the Seed Tech
Building – estimated cost - $1,082,400. She noted that they have the funding in place to install
now.
Scenario #2: Road to Seed Tech Building – extension of road from roundabout north to Seed
Tech Building and exiting back onto 22nd Ave. Includes road, curb, gutter, sidewalk and all
utilities (water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, gas, telephone and data) – estimated cost -
$709,530.
Scenario #3: Road to Seed Tech Building and Gravel Roadway around remaining outside and
inside common roadway – Extension of gravel roadway around remaining outside and inside
common roadways. Includes grading, base, utilities and storm drainage – estimated cost -
$1,523,500.
34
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Scenario #4 Full Completed Loop and Infrastructure – Entire site, which includes roadway, curb,
gutter, sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, gas, telephone and data – estimated
cost – $4,478,745.
McKnight asked the group to look and consider the magnitude and public/private investment for
a total build-out of the entire 125 acres.
She said there are over 200 research parks in the United States and Canada. It’s important for
the elected officials to understand the amount of companies that locate at these parks, the number
of employees they hire, and the total economic impact to a community.
NDSU created a 50 acre park in 2000. To date, over 60 people are employed for one
company with an average salary over $55,000K. The total estimated economic impact is
$128,000 resulting in a direct contribution of $2.6 million to the tax base.
McKnight said if we don’t have everything in place, we’ll loose these companies and opportunities.
Companies will be attracted to the connection with the university and the proximity to I-29 and
the park will be successful.
Mary Negstad, County Commissioner, asked if there was a funding commitment from the state for
the infrastructure. McKnight said the state provided a portion for the initial infrastructure and
part of the first building. The question is do we wait for the state or get the ball rolling now to
attract these businesses?
Reed asked if lots were available now in Phase 1. Yes, however there are no roads.
McKnight said realistically a large company or developer who wants 5 parcels, the ideal location
for a cluster is the far southeast parcel of the park. She can’t market to that type of client and
say it will be years before we have a road there for you.
Reed asked if there is an average number of lots per company in a research park. No.
Falken asked in the long range plan for the park if it be at full-capacity in 20 years. Will the hot
and cold weather affect the longevity of unoccupied roads? No, there will be traffic on the
roads.
Munsterman said Option 3 may be the best way to start. The roads are surfaced but she could
still drive clients around and there’d be water and sewer installed. The TIF Disrict can help begin
to fund it.
Larson commented on option 3, that the money needs to be stretched and do as much as we can
with limited resources. If McKnight is able to recruit the right company, there should be a
contingency plan to facilitate and bring a completed road up to them to meet their needs.
Bartley asked if this would create a footprint that wasn’t alterable. Sometimes it’s not realistic to
plan 15-20 years because things will deteriorate before development. Will the Seed Tech
Building locate in the northwest corner? Yes, and they’ve already sold a site a distance from
headquarters with better visibility and access for their trucks.
35
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Bartley expressed concern that things change over 20 years. Munsterman commented that it’s the
“chicken or the egg.” The Growth Partnership Board hired consultants who provided a report on
the layout, hired an executive director, who has in turn, offered advice on how this park should be
laid out.
Larson said that we’ve worked with the city utilities and Banner & Assoc. to create an economy of
scale and would have to defer to them on what is the most efficient way to do it.
Deanna Santema, County Commissioner, said she was in favor, but as a Brookings County
Commissioner she must be concerned and take care of the entire county’s needs. She noted that
the County doesn’t do any work on township roads or for private entities on the lakes. The County
has set precedence that they don’t do this. She questioned how this would take precedence over
those other needs.
Munsterman said each governing body needs to understand the growth needs and potential and
each have different financial responsibilities. He felt this issue should be a regional approach
decided collectively as a group.
Larson said no money has been spent. This is a report for each entity to receive and mull over
and also for the citizens to see. He sees this not as a problem, but as a challenge.
Reed said everyone needs to look at the park with a different mindset. Rather than looking at
ways to improve or fix current infrastructure, this is the other side of the balance sheet. Will
doing this infrastructure build-out increase the revenue side with more taxes and people? It helps
the county too.
Larson said from the first time dirt is turned, we’re gaining sales tax revenue. Both sides need to
sit down and talk out how to accomplish this goal that is beneficial to all.
Falken clarified that they’re not trying to decide on how much money. It’s an information sharing
session to show both entities the park’s goals and plan to meet the infrastructure needs.
Emil Klavetter, County Commissioner, said this issue is much broader than just Brookings and we
should seek state earmark funding. Munsterman noted that not much earmarking is being done.
Bartley asked what funding options were. Tax increment financing, earmarks, bonding authority,
private donations, city and county, opt-out, grants.
Jackie Lanning, City Engineer, noted that there is a 5 year window on a TIF district and the clock
is ticking as of the summer of 2007.
County Industrial Park. Al Heuton, BEDC Director, presented the group with information, but
indicated that he did not have a funding request. He showed the location of current industrial
land and its availability and geographic limitations for development of future industrial land (i.e.
floodplain, state owned land, utilities, lift stations).
He gave an update on the status of undeveloped industrial land. Just about everything is sold in
the Telkamp Industrial Park. There are 40 acres north of the new DOT land with 10 acres sold
36
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
and another industry interested in the rest. There’s 26 acres available in the Wiese Industrial
Park.
Heuton reviewed the future growth patterns in Brookings.
Elkton has 40 acres with no utilities, but the site will never have natural gas. Volga is out of land.
Arlington has 40 acres on the Kingsbury side and a 6 acre heavy commercial on the Brookings
side with no utilities.
The choices for industrial land are very limited and he is interested in trying to identify other
choices in Brookings County. Within the last year he had 17 contacts with different heavy type
commercial or light industrial business, but had no place to put anyone. He clarified that the
BEDC is not in heavy recruitment mode for that reason. His focus is working hard to keep up with
growth of existing industries, and trying to meet their labor and housing problems.
Bartley commented that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan planned for industrial development (800
acres), but it may be too expensive to do that. The current parks took a long time to fill and now
they are suddenly filled. The entire objective of an industrial park has changed because the
concepts and technology are different. When looking outside the City of Brookings it will be
important to look at services provided. I-29 is our number one draw and venture too far away
from that or utility access there will be issues.
Munsterman outlined funding options for regional growth plan to include the Innovation Campus
and Industrial Park and asked how to move ahead from here.
1. The City of Brookings and Brookings County coordinate a joint bond effort to fund the
Innovation Campus Infrastructure and the County Industrial Park, or…
2. Split out the project funding:
• City of Brookings fund the Innovation Campus Infrastructure
• Brooking County fund the County Industrial Park through the BEDC
Weldon said he could put together various funding scenarios and ways to structure the taxing
authority (joint bond effort).
Brookings Government Campus Proposal.
Munsterman asked the group where the City and County could work together to find funding.
He noted the growing pains that our economy is having. He asked how to plan for continued
success. He also noted that each entity has identified space needs and presented a proposal for
a government campus, combining the city and county offices in the 1921 building.
The components to the plan are to develop a long-term collaboration between the City of
Brookings and Brookings County through the development of a Government Campus Master Plan.
The campus would consist of a Government Administration Center, Economic Development Center
(BEDC, Chamber/CVB, DBI), and Law Enforcement Center. This would be accomplished through a
space agreement in where possibly the County extension moves into current City Hall space or
other available joint efforts currently developing and the City expands the use of the Swiftel
Center for convention use in the current County Resource Space.
37
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Munsterman said Swiftel Center representatives will be presenting an expansion proposal to the
City Council on February 12th with plans to expand into more of a convention facility and part of
that plan would include occupying the current County Extension Resource space. If that were the
case, the Extension Offices could go where City Hall is currently located as one option. Another
idea he has is an outdoor lifestyle type center that may have some of the mission and focus of
Extension. It’s something to think about.
In his proposal, the Brookings Government Administration Center would be located in the 1921
Building. The design layout would be to allow for efficiency and citizen ‘user friendly’ access to
city and county services. Cost efficiencies can be realized through combined offices and services
coordinating for a higher level of service functions (ie: receptionist, county GIS with city
technology staff: have already collaborated on employee training). Taxpayers would only invest
once in items such as: technology infrastructure (high speed connection and network), meeting
rooms, board room (with sound system and video system installed), joint public information
terminal (access to public documents, electronic records). Economic Development/Chamber/DBI
entities would be collaboration with local government in the same facility.
He presented a “Rent-to-Own proposal” in where the city would rent until we are able to buy out
the properties identified as expansion areas within the proposed master plan. Construction of a
Joint Law Enforcement facility would also be within the long range plan.
Munsterman said the city’s space needs are currently 20,000 square feet for City Hall. The City
isn’t in dire straights and he noted that the County needs to do something now. The City is
sensitive to this timing issue, but if a collaboration opportunity is possible, the City would like to
pursue one.
Weldon distributed and reviewed a proforma on a joint city/county government center. The
report has some assumptions. One is that the county needs 21,000 sq. ft. and city needs 19,000
for a total of 40,000 sq. ft. He noted that there were several city departments excluded for
their space needs evaluation. Based on the raw needs of 40,000 sq. ft. and a main construction
standard of $173/sq. ft. , the total would be $6.9 million. The $173 figure comes from the
County’s report. The 1921 Building has a bit more space with 55,000 sq. ft. The additional
square footage would present opportunities to bring in other government and economic entities
such as the BEDC, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Brookings, Inc. Estimated renovation costs
based on information from the owner is $52/sq. ft. Weldon estimates a cost of $364,000 for
first floor needs and $1.4 million for second floor renovations for a total of $1.8 million. This is
also based on an assumption of the owner extending the offer for a joint project. The owner has
offered a rental rate to the county for 2009 with the idea of selling on January 1, 2010. Annual
rental rate is estimated at $10/sq. ft., which would provide $544,000 in income. The owner had
offered to sell for $3.1 Million.
Governance options could include one entity owning and the other renting, with some common
area costs. Both could co-own and split out common areas. Both could be handled with a Joint
Powers Agreement.
There would be some parking and site work needed. There’s also an opportunity to share a
meeting room to explore additional savings.
38
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Thomson asked what the current parking situation was. Stephanie Vogel, County representative,
said the County owns the lot to the north. The gym has a permanent easement for use of the
parking lot.
Weldon said the two entities could work out a wide variety of rental rate options (lease for 5, 10
years, etc.).
Larson noted regarding financing options that public/private ventures would help stretch dollars.
Thomson asked if there was anything we could do with the new Children’s Museum. Yes, there
are partnership opportunities with the private sector that could be pursued.
Larson said both entities need to be concerned about its limited resources and opportunities to
stretch all the dollars. The City is investing millions upgrading the downtown streetscape. If a
joint law enforcement center is reasonable, then both entities should collaborate on a structure.
Creating a new joint administrative center (government campus) helps stretch all the citizens’ tax
dollars.
Klavetter questioned the accuracy of the $52/sq. ft. figure, citing it probably didn’t include other
needs of the County such as new elevators, a vault and new restrooms. Are those things included
or would that be extra? Are those figures based on general office spaces?
Negstad expressed concern regarding security from the basement access to the public.
Larson said the two groups are trying to figure out how to fund the research park infrastructure.
He said that they can’t do one project without affecting another project because neither group
has pools of money. Expansion of the Rail Authority would be for the benefit of the rural
residents. Industrial Park expansion would benefit the smaller communities by providing them
with more opportunities. All these issues can’t be just Brookings. This is the first step of our entire
community together and part of the overall decision-making process.
Reed commented regarding the government complex concept that people expect one-stop
shopping in the same building. Right now people we serve perceive government as too complex
and this center would help.
Thomson asked if state offices could be included. Larson said the subcommittee didn’t get that far
yet. It would be important to look at what other government services are provided that would
co-locate in this section of town. They looked at building new, utilizing the 1921 Building and
other buildings in their review of this issue. But there may be other options that they didn’t look
at.
Thomson asked what other city and county offices are located together in either South Dakota or
the region. None.
The assessed value is $1.7 Million. The project is under the 8-year Historic Tax Moratorium
Program. The city zeroed out the value on the building to what it was before construction was
done.
39
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Weldon said there aren’t many combined government centers, but there are many combined law
enforcement centers. If the two parties proceed with a center, he would recommend forming an
intergovernmental board between each entity that would determine square footage and costs
associated.
Klavetter said the County’s space needs are fairly immediate. He asked how long this plan would
take. The County has made plans to address their space needs and have designated funds
towards that end. They recently voted to build a new building and plan to proceed and take
care of their space needs in a timely manner. He was concerned the City’s proposal would take
quite a while.
Munsterman proposed that the City would be ready to move in with the County into the 1921
building by 2009. He apologized for getting the idea to the County so late, but if they see this
option as valuable and if it would save money in the long haul; he encouraged them to consider it.
Each entity must decide how to use its funds and how those funds are prioritized. The City wanted
to make sure to put this idea on the table for the County to consider. If the County felt it was
cause to reconsider, that would be great.
Klavetter expressed concerns about storage and office space, asking if it was adequate for
county and city. He’d like to know the bottom line numbers because he didn’t feel the proposal
was high enough. Munsterman agreed and said if this proposal costs more than new
construction, then it doesn’t make sense.
Munsterman said that it’s not fair to ask the question, but if this proposal looks like something that
should be explored, would the County be opposed to setting action steps with staff for firm
numbers to be able to assess this and compare to what we’re doing.
Klavetter commented that the project would have to be bid, whether it’s rented or owned.
There was concern that the income from the second floor wasn’t included in the cost analysis. That
income was not taken into consideration.
Bezdichek noted there are three potential structures in downtown Brookings that could provide
space for the city and county needs; former Kings Wok, Fergens and the bank building at 5th St
and 5th Ave.
Vogel said the county looked at the bank building but it wasn’t big enough. They did not look at
the other two buildings.
Doris Roden, DBI Program Manager, said there is a business interested in the Fergen’s building
and the owner of the King’s Wok building has plans to open a second Chinese restaurant location.
Falken said he wished the proposal had been made two years ago. The County is in a space
needs crunch right now. The decision has been made to move forward on a new building and to
change gears now would be difficult. The money has already been set aside to move forward
with their plans. The City looked at their space needs after the County did. Each has their own
responsibilities on which way to proceed. The County needs to look at its critical needs. He felt
the County needs to continue to move forward with its plans as it has joint discussions with the City
on this issue.
40
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Munsterman asked when the County is scheduled to be in its new space. Falken said the
construction will start in 2008 and in the new building by 2009. Munsterman suggested that if the
City was able to do its due diligence on costs and the full Council collaborated on what to do,
and was able to arrive at a decision in a 2-3 month time period, how long would it take to do
renovations on the 1921 Building. Would it end up meeting the same timeline of 2009? He
agreed that both the city and county want the best use of money. If the numbers make sense,
can the City meet the County’s timeline of when it needs to be in a new space?
Falken expressed concern how this could be coordinated in a timely manner. Munsterman said if
the city decided this is what it wanted to do, it could move very quickly and meet that timeline.
Santema asked if the joint law enforcement and state office could move into the 1921 Building
and the County stay in the Courthouse. Munsterman said there’s value to that idea. He
suggested both entities be considering this area as a government campus center and work on
buying properties over the next 5 to 10 years.
Klavetter said the County will be hosting a public meeting to take input on their building plans
and court services representatives will be there to explain the space issues and their needs. He
said the county has looked at this issue for a year and it hasn’t been easy. They will still move
ahead with the public meeting on input and will talk about the new concept. However, he feels
they need to proceed with their plan and move ahead. He said he couldn’t answer the Mayor’s
question on the 2-3 month response.
Negstad said she believes the owner’s estimate is based on what he thinks needs to be done and
doesn’t include what the county needs. She feels the number will be totally different from
figures provided today.
Thomson asked why the County doesn’t expand within the 1921 Building.
Larson thanked the Mayor, Weldon and Vogel for working together on this joint effort. He said
he found it a rewarding experience. The proposal has now been laid out before boards and the
public with the concept of working together and doing things jointly. This brings everyone in the
County into the decision making process.
Munsterman suggested the two groups meet again in 4-5 weeks regarding more information on
the scope of the project. In the meantime, both entities can get input from the citizens and
evaluate the feasibility of the proposed timetables.
Klavetter said the County has specific needs that the 1921 Building doesn’t have, such as a walk-
in vault.
Al Kurtenbach thanked the City and County for having a joint meeting and hoped they would find
a way to collaborate on the first three agenda items. He would like to see action going forward
on these areas.
SDSU President David Chicoine said it’s time for the three major entities (City, County and
University) to think about how to lock in funds and continue the momentum of growth.
41
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
City of Brookings
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk
42
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
February 12, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 4:00 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, Ginger Thomson, and Tom Bezdichek. City
Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also
present.
4:00 P.M. Presentation on the Swiftel Center Expansion Plan
Representatives of VenuWorks gave a presentation on the Swiftel Center Expansion Plan. A
complete copy of the feasibility report and PowerPoint presentation is available for public
inspection at the City’s Clerk Office.
Sharon Cummins, VenuWorks, said since 2003 the Swiftel Center has supported 1,486 event days
and has welcomed over a half million patrons through its doors. The annual Economic Impact of
events hosted at the Swiftel Center has increased from $4,167,200 in 2001 to $10,515,721 in
2006 (with multiplier).
The focus of the study evolved around the need to better accommodate current conventions and
meetings and to expand the Swiftel Center’s opportunities to secure additional business. Early in
the process, it became apparent that remodeling and expanding the Swiftel Center would be
required to alleviate space shortages and to allow the Swiftel Center to accommodate a wider
range of simultaneous, multiple events.
The design for the Swiftel Center expansion is needed to address the following issues: lack of
flexible meeting space, lack of large ballroom and exhibit space, lack of secure storage and
office space, obstructed and/or congested public circulation to existing meeting rooms and arena
(a safety concern), and an undersized kitchen for the usage needed.
An event based feasibility study looks at usage, design and function. A successful convention
center attracts new business to the community through meetings, conventions, and trade shows;
attracts entertainment, cultural, religious, business, tourist and other special events; and provides
space for non-profit, charitable and community events.
The methodology in this feasibility study includes surveys and interviews. As a part of this
analysis, VenuWorks interviewed, surveyed, and/or consulted community members and industry
professionals. Research was also conducted with regard to the capabilities and amenities of
competitive facilities within South Dakota. Current and potential client groups were surveyed or
studied to assess their needs.
Ron Cummins, VenuWorks, provided the survey highlights:
Event Requirements
81.5% of convention and meeting planner Respondents meet once every year
77.7% of potential clients rotate event locations among South Dakota cities or choose a site
each year
85.7% of current and potential clients use meeting rooms
70.4% of potential clients need multiple break out rooms per event
43
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
84% require banquet and exhibit spaces on the same day
Hotel Requirements
54.1% of convention and meeting events have 100-500 attendees
57.9% of attendees are accompanied by a spouse or guest
58.4% of current clients’ events run one to two days
96.2% of potential clients’ events run two to four days
85.7% of all Respondents prefer an attached hotel
In a competitive analysis of meeting rooms current ranking, the Swiftel Center ranks 18 out of 19
for the number of meeting rooms when compared to other South Dakota facilities. As for exhibit
space current ranking, the Swiftel Center ranks 5 out of 19 for exhibition space when the arena
and concourse are included. The Swiftel Center drops to 18 out of 19 when the arena and
concourse are excluded.
Related to current demand, versatility is the key component to being a true multi-purpose facility.
That includes versatility in design, function and usage.
The information gathered from current and potential clients indicates that to be competitive the
facility must be able to accommodate simultaneous, multiple functions.
Meeting Rooms: 77.8% needs 1 room, 22.2% needs 2-7 rooms, 36.4% needs up to100 people,
51.3% from 101-450 people, 12.5% over 450 people. For Break Out Rooms: 58.1% need 1-3
rooms, 48.9% need 4-12 rooms, 29.3% up to 25 people, 53.4% from 26-75 people, 16.4%
over 75 people.
In the proposed expansion the 5 main rooms would be designed to be divided into 14 separate
rooms with capacities ranging from 67 to 556 people utilizing classroom seating or up to 1,181
with theater seating.
Banquet Space survey needs: 10.5% for 1-100 guests, 65.8% for 101-300 guests, 21.0% for
301-700 guests. Exhibit Space: 33.3% need 588-3,920 s.f., 33.3% need 4,900-9,800 s.f.,
33.3% need 14,700-29,500 > s.f., 84.2% require Banquet and Exhibit Space on the same day.
In the proposed expansion the Total Exhibition Space (with arena) grows from 39,913 s.f. to
55,375 s.f. providing a total of 16 separate areas for exhibitors. The Banquet Space (without
arena) would grow to 5 -14 rooms with seating for 48 - 1,016 guests and square footage
increases to 800 - 12,000 square feet, depending on the room selected.
Dan Miller, JLG Architects, reviewed the potential facility options noting the proposed site map,
floor plans and artist renderings.
The meeting room ranking after expansion, in a competitive analysis, cites that the increased
number of meetings rooms (and square footage) would improve the Swiftel Center’s ranking to 9
from 18 out of 19 South Dakota facilities. In the Exhibition Space ranking after expansion, with
the arena and concourse included, the Swiftel Center would move up to 3 from 5 for the amount
of exhibition space. Without the arena and concourse space, the Swiftel Center would move up
to 11 from 18 for the amount of exhibition space.
44
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Dan Miller, VenuWorks, said three things drove the process to bring this before the City Council at
this time: 1) The City and County have been discussing future space needs and the location of
the county resource center, which is currently located at the Swiftel Center, 2) The City Council
deciding to take the remaining liquor operating agreement off the shelf and open up the
application process, and 3) the possibility of an attached hotel through a private developer who
could offer a full service restaurant.
Dean Gulbranson, Gulbranson Development, was introduced as the potential private developer in
this public/private venture. Gulbranson said there are so many communities with this type of a
public/private partnership project. He said a major advantage to attract conventions to a
convention center is an attached hotel. Gulbranson cited that the highest percentage of survey
respondents (85.7%) requested an attached hotel. He also noted that 86.8% of
convention/conference attendees either bring a spouse, guest or children. He pointed out the
potential economic impact from these visitors. He has had some experience with the convention
center business, in that he previously owned the former Holiday Inn. He sold the business due to
concerns about what the swiftel center would mean for his business. He has since learned that the
Center is not a competitor but was bringing additional business to the hotels and the community.
The size of the conventions that the Center wants to attract would need all the hotels involved.
One attached hotel couldn’t handle the influx of additional people. When the City pursues and
books a big convention, it will be the direct result of a combination effort among many entities
(hotels, chamber, Swiftel and local participation).
Gulbranson said there are also many organizations that require local participation from within
their own to attract them. He cited the Arabian Show as a good example. If not for the efforts
of local resident Dick Peterson supporting the event, they would not have come here. Hopefully
that group will be back again and there are many other organizations like that.
When he owned the Holiday Inn he was constantly bidding for conventions and it was a group
effort. According to the study’s survey, the Center is only getting 12.5% of potential events and
77% are going somewhere else.
Gulbranson said the type of facility he and his partners are proposing would be more upscale
with approximately 100 rooms, many of which would be suites because that’s want conventions
require. He would be able to provide more specifics on the plan once the specific site is laid out
along with the public/private relationship. The facility would also need to be a “full service
property,” which means with a restaurant and bar. The plan would incorporate swimming and
exercise facilities, but they are not convinced that a full water park is necessary. A shuttle
service would be needed and could be promoted in the convention bidding process. The City
would have more convention opportunities with the addition of the Swiftel Center Convention
facility and hotel combined with the Day’s Inn, Staurolite Inn, and the newly built Shamrock.
The City needs to look at the additional business and sales tax this Center could generate. A
convention center could open up a new realm of larger conventions, trade shows, and meetings.
Vermillion hosts a large Farm Show every year and it hasn’t come here because we didn’t have
adequate facilities before. The need for “break-out” rooms is huge. In order to sell and book
conventions, the ability to offer break-out rooms is critical. There are many conventions that
bring in 300-500 people, which will filter to all the hotels. Gulbranson envisions a working
relationship with all hospitality properties. He noted the potential of additional sales tax
45
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
revenue from an extra 1,000 people at $40/day/person, all of which include eating, shopping
and fueling.
Gulbranson showed the Council artist renderings of a potential center/hotel, noting the intent to
make the new area blend with the existing Swiftel Center. If a project is a “go,” he will come
back with full blown plans on how the property will look. He noted that he does own another
hotel in town with extra land and was planning to tear it down and build another hotel on the site.
He has the full architectural drawing done for that project and had thought of starting this spring.
He has already invested $150,000 on these plans and tieing up a franchise. However, he would
be willing to let this project sit because of the potential of what this project would do for the
community and other business owners in the city.
Reed asked if there were any other cities in South Dakota looking at a convention center now.
Richter said Mitchell is trying to get a new arena, but not a convention center. Those are very
different. Other projects include an events center in Aberdeen, a convention facility in
Deadwood, and a convention facility in Sioux Falls.
Bartley noted that a long time ago there was a proposal for a hotel to be attached to the Swiftel
Center. He commended Gulbranson on his proposal and plans, saying it exceeded the City’s
expectations. He commented that additional hotels are planned in Brookings, and one should
never underestimate the value of a public/private partnership, but he also has many questions on
how to do it. It has not been done before and there would be many issues to resolve. Bartley
thanked Richter and Gulbranson for their efforts and sees nothing but positives, but there would
be details to work out in a short time.
Further discussion of the expansion plans will be scheduled for a council work session in the near
future.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Brookings Area Transportation Authority (BATA) Funding Request. Brenda Schweitzer, BATA,
was present to review transportation service levels and an additional funding request of
$25,000. She said BATA has been absorbing the taxi service needs since January 1st. Their
ridership has doubled. Services hours have been extended to provide coverage from 7:30 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. Late evening requests are being covered by other providers. Weekend ridership
has increased 57%, not going past 10:00 p.m. Safe Ride is separate, but their numbers are up
too. Employment rides have also increased.
Reed asked the cost per ride. Before subsidy it is $6.02 and with the subsidy it comes in at
$2.38. She noted that statewide, they are already at the top of the rate schedule.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Thomson, to place this for action on the
February 26th agenda to fund BATA an additional $25,000. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Update on 34th Avenue Improvement Project, Overpass and Interchange Project.
Weldon said the city has received a preliminary proposal from HDR Engineering of Sioux Falls to
conduct a study at the 34th Avenue area. The proposed cost is $138,000 and staff is looking at
a way to reduce the amount. He hasn’t received the detailed information yet. Weldon
suggested the city pursue opportunities for a public/private partnership to help fund the study.
46
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Council action on the study was scheduled during the work session and will need to be removed
from the agenda.
Council discussion on County Commission joint meeting topics.
On January 29th the City Council met in joint session with the Brookings County Commission and
discussed the following issues: Brookings County Rail Authority, Transportation District Bill (Rail
Corridor TIF Project), SB 183, Future Growth Needs for the Brookings Region (34th Avenue
Improvement Project, Overpass and Interchange Plans), the Department of Transportation Land
Discussion and Strategy Update, Innovation Campus Infrastructure Improvements, County Industrial
Park, and Joint Space Collaboration: Creating Opportunities for Efficiency.
Reed noted that these are important issues and the City Council should have a continuous dialogue
with the County Commission.
Brunner commented that a big limitation to the research park is the lack of infrastructure and the
city needs to find ways to address for infrastructure investment for both residential and industrial
uses. He suggested the Council discuss this issue during its goal setting session.
Bartley commented on the joint space issue and that the City is asking the County to wait on its
plans to build. He questioned if the City could catch up fast enough to satisfy the County’s needs.
They may need to move forward faster. He recommended these issues be addressed as quickly
as possible. He’d like to see joint collaboration on space needs and suggested forming a joint
committee to create a formal request to allow the City to do that.
There was consensus from the Council to move forward on the joint space collaboration.
Weldon said the County Commission is hosting a public meeting on February 19th to receive input
on the proposed building project. The City already has a space needs analysis which includes
future projections. He agreed that it is important to pursue a space collaboration if there are
any money saving opportunities to be gained. He would like to facilitate whatever the City
Council wants in terms of a joint facility.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to direct the City Manager to
explore the possibility of a joint space collaboration with the County on all avenues and to draft
a letter to the County Commission to that regard requesting that they work diligently with the City
in this matter. The City Manager was asked to proceed in the shortest time frame possible. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Munsterman commented that the City would need to determine if the existing rail authority would
be willing to expand its scope and mission to promote a long-term strategy for safety and
service. Weldon was asked to follow-up.
Review of Liquor Applications. The following businesses submitted applications by the
advertised February 8, 2008 deadline and the City Council formally acknowledged receipt of
the applications. Packets were also provided to the media and are available for public
inspection at the City Clerk’s Office.
1. BraVo’s, Kip & Michelle Pharis, owners
2. Bailey’s Shamrock, LLC, dba The Shamrock, Mike D. Bailey, Mike F. Bailey, Leane Bailey,
owners
47
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
3. Gonz Productions, Inc., dba Shenanigans Pub, Garner Hansen, owner
4. Star Hospitality, Inc, Dean Gulbranson, David Kneip, Greg Kneip, Tim Hogan, owners
Weldon said Council direction is needed to identify the review process and schedule. He
recommended the Council take time to evaluate the applications and then invite the applicants to
a work session for public presentations.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager responded to questions pertaining to the action
items on the agenda. Action on the HDR study was removed from the agenda.
City Clerk Reports. Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, provided a briefing on future agenda
items and upcoming invitations and obligations.
City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Munsterman said there was good discussion at the February 9th Housing Conference regarding the city’s
needs and how to facilitate affordable housing. There was a consensus of that group that there is a
need for a public/private partnership. Al Heuton will pull together a plan to facilitate.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Item No. 12 regarding the HDR study was removed from the agenda. A motion was
made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to approve the consent agenda which included:
A. Agenda, as amended.
B. Action to appoint Sandra Moore to the Brookings Human Rights Committee, term expiring
1/1/2011.
C. Action to appoint Andrew Natzel to the Brookings Transportation Board as the SDSU
Student Representative, term expiring 1/1/2009.
D. Action on Resolution No. 12-08 Fixing Time and Place for Hearing upon Assessment Roll
for Sidewalk Assessment Project 2007-01SWR.
Resolution No. 12-08
Resolution Fixing Time And Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Sidewalk
Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR
(2007 Sidewalk Repair Sites)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1. The assessment roll for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR having been
filed in the office of the City Clerk on the 4th day of February, 2008, the City Council shall
meet in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, the 26th day of
February, 2008, at 6:00 o'clock PM, the said date being not less than twenty (20) days
from the filing of said assessment roll for hearing thereon.
2. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare a notice describing, in general
terms Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR, the date of filing the assessment
roll, the time and place of hearing thereon, stating that the assessment roll will be open
for public inspection at the office of the City Engineer and referring to the assessment roll
for further particulars.
3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish said notice in the official
newspaper at least one (1) week prior to the date set for hearing and to mail a copy
thereof, by first class mail addressed to the owner or owners of any property to be
assessed at his, her or their last mailing address as shown by the records of the Director of
Equalization at least one (1) week prior to the date set for said hearing.
48
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
E. Action on Resolution No. 13-08 Fixing Time and Place for Hearing upon Assessment Roll
for Street Assessment Project 2007-07STA.
Resolution No. 13-08
Resolution Fixing Time And Place For Hearing Upon Assessment Roll For Street Assessment
Project No. 2007-07STA
(Alley from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue between 4th Street and 5th Street)
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. 2007-07STA having been filed in
the office of the City Clerk on the 4th day of February, 2008, the City Council shall meet
in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, the 26th day of February,
2008, at 6:00 o'clock PM, the said date being not less than twenty (20) days from the
filing of said assessment roll for hearing thereon.
2. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare a notice describing, in general
terms Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA, 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.
F. Action on Resolution No. 14-08, a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign an Agreement
for Federal Aviation Administration Project No. AP0005-2008.
Resolution No. 14-08
Resolution Authorizing Mayor To Sign An Agreement For
Federal Aviation Administration Project
Project No. AP0005-2008
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings desires funding for the equipment and labor to repair
the existing fueling system at the Brookings Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, The State of South Dakota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics
has approved the use of allocated fuel tax funds for this project; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration is hereby requested to authorize Project
No. AP0005-2008 in accordance with the approved state financial assistance agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign all
documents related to an agreement for the Federal Aviation Administration Project No.
AP0005-2008.
G. Action on Resolution No. 17-08, ICMA-RD 457 Deferred Compensation Plan.
Resolution 17-08
Resolution For A Legislative Body Relating To A 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
Account Number 30-6363
Name of Employer: The City of Brookings State: South Dakota
Title of Program Coordinator: Human Resources Director
(see definition below for duties of Program Coordinator)
Resolution of the above named Employer (“Employer”)
WHEREAS, the Employer has employees rendering valuable services; and
49
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
WHEREAS, the establishment of a deferred compensation plan for such employees serves
the interests of the Employer by enabling it to provide reasonable retirement security for
its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management system, and
by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has determined that the establishment of a deferred
compensation plan to be administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation serves the
above objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Employer desires that its deferred compensation plan be administered by
the ICMA Retirement Corporation, and that some or all of the funds held under such plan
be invested in the VantageTrust Company, a trust established by public employers for the
collective investment of funds held under their retirement and deferred compensation
plans;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Employer hereby adopts the deferred
compensation plan (the “Plan”) in the form of: (Select one)
• The ICMA Retirement Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust, referred to
as Appendix A
• The plan provided by the Employer (executed copy attached hereto).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employer hereby executes the Declaration of Trust of
the VantageTrust Company, attached hereto as Appendix B, intending this execution to be
operative with respect to any retirement or deferred compensation plan subsequently
established by the Employer, if the assets of the plan are to be invested in the
VantageTrust Company.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the
Employer serving as trustee, for the exclusive benefit of the Plan participants and their
beneficiaries, and the assets shall not be diverted to any other purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Employer hereby agrees to serve as trustee under the
Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Human Resources Director (use title of official, not
name) shall be the coordinator for this program; shall receive necessary reports, notices,
etc. from the ICMA Retirement Corporation or the VantageTrust Company; shall cast, on
behalf of the Employer, any required votes under the VantageTrust Company;
Administrative duties to carry out the plan may be assigned to the appropriate
department, and is authorized to execute all necessary agreements with ICMA Retirement
Corporation incidental to the administration of the Plan.
H. Action on Resolution No. 18-08, Amending Retirement Plan to Permit Loans.
Resolution 18-08
Resolution For A Legislative Body
Relating To Amending A Retirement Plan To Permit Loans
Section 401 Money Purchase Plan
Section 401 Profit-Sharing Plan
50
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
ICMA-RC Plan # 10 _ _ _ _
Name of Employer: The City of Brookings State: South Dakota
Resolution of the above named Employer (“Employer”)
WHEREAS, the Employer has employees rendering valuable services; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has established a retirement plan (the “Plan”) for such employees
which serves the interest of the Employer by enabling it to provide reasonable retirement
security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel management
system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Employer has determined that permitting participants in the retirement plan
to take loans from the Plan will serve these objectives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan will permit loans.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Open Forum. Mike Bailey, owner of the Shamrock, requested an opportunity to comment on the
Swiftel Center expansion plan discussion from the work session. He was advised that the Council
would have additional discussion of this issue at a future meeting and public comment would be
accepted at that time.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 08-08 – Campaign Finance. First reading was held on Ordinance
No. 08-08, Campaign Finance Amendment. Public Hearing: February 26, 2008
Public Hearing – Ordinance No. 01-08 – Boardinghouses. Public Hearing was held on
Ordinance No. 01-08, an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to
a boardinghouse use.
Public Hearing: Sherry Carver cited her experiences living near boardinghouses and rentals with
regard to traffic, parties, noise, trash, maintenance, and lack of enforcement.
M.K. Hugghins objected to the proposed ordinance and didn’t agree with a blanket prohibition
against boardinghouses.
Sam Nelson, Student Senate, commented that the issues raised were related to code enforcement and
not boardinghouses. He objected to the ordinance, noting the current student housing shortage.
Kim Winterfeld spoke in favor of the ordinance and felt it was an important first step to improving
rental housing and their neighborhood.
James Pedersen also spoke in favor of the ordinance and agreed that this is the first of several steps
to improve the neighborhood quality and the entire city of Brookings, especially the University
Residential Historic District where the problems are most pronounced. He hopes the enforcement issue
is being addressed. He believes that the gradual erosion of a quality mixed neighborhood is
something Brookings can’t afford and believes some of those houses may have enough incentive to
become family housing.
51
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Gary Winterfeld spoke in support of the ordinance.
Rich Howard spoke in support of the ordinance.
Public hearing closed.
A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Whaley, to approve Ordinance No. 01-08.
Discussion: Bezdichek said he feels the City needs to apologize for the code enforcement issues
and that there’s no excuse for the past few years. He said the city is funding an additional code
enforcement staff person. He’s happy to see a neighborhood watch program has been
established and urged citizens to voice their concerns.
Brunner said the city needs massive housing changes to meet the needs in this community.
Boardinghouses, by adding one additional person, will not make the difference that is needed.
He doesn’t feel that boardinghouses is good governance and is not an efficient way to add more
housing. There are many other options to add quality housing in the community.
Reed said it is important to understand that the students were a big part of getting more code
enforcement done. The students want this. The City will need to look at its housing storage and
develop a plan to address those needs.
On the motion; all present voted yes, motion carried.
Public Hearing – Ordinance No. 05-08 – Drive-In. Public Hearing was held on Ordinance No.
05-08, an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a drive-in food service in the
Business B-1 District.
Public Hearing: Dick Fergen, owner of Nick’s, spoke in support of the ordinance. He purchased
Nick’s four years ago and has done everything he can do to carry on the tradition of the business.
He said he’d like to build Nick’s into a better destination in downtown and would like to improve
downtown. He believes the ordinance will provide him an opportunity to present his plan to the City
Council. The tradition has been there some time, but has faltered some. His future plan includes a
drive-up window and adding seating for eight more people. This will help in bringing young people
downtown over the lunch hour. More people will result in more business, more revenue, and more
property value. This will give his business and other downtown businesses another way to compete.
He urged the Council to approve the ordinance, which would give him the opportunity to present his
future plans.
Sherry Carver urged the Council to take careful consideration of the safety factor.
Lori Sullivan, owner of the Safari, expressed concern about the alley being blocked for her morning
deliveries by semis. She also expressed concern for pedestrians.
Harry Mansheim asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated 24 hours a day.
Reed reminded the audience to limit their comments to the ordinance in general and not a specific
future applicant.
52
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Public hearing closed.
Whaley asked if there was supposed to be a report from the Traffic Safety Committee. Lanning
said if this ordinance is approved, future applications for a conditional use would be given to the
Committee for their recommendations.
There was clarification made that a YES VOTE would be approval of the ordinance and would
allow drive-throughs as a conditional use in the downtown. However, a 2/3 positive vote of the
Council would be needed (per SDCL 11-6-20).
Whaley noted the position statement from the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission voicing
its objection to this ordinance as an allowed use in the downtown.
Bartley cautioned the Council that if this ordinance were approved, it would be an allowed use in
the entire B-1 district. The specific purpose of the B-1 was to make it pedestrian friendly. The
alleys are designed for delivery traffic. It doesn’t work to have a drive-in service through the
downtown. He encouraged the Council to defeat this ordinance.
Munsterman disagreed saying he felt it was important to create tools to make businesses
successful and continue to grow.
Thomson said she would support the ordinance and hopes any plans would compliment the
integrity of the streetscape project.
Brunner said there may be places where this will work and some places where it won’t work.
Bezdichek agreed with Brunner, stating approval of this ordinance doesn’t mean the Council will
support all applications in the B-1 District.
Reed agreed, but said there may be questions about safety and access in fairness to all
businesses. Approval of this ordinance will give the Council review of each application.
Whaley noted the number of trees in the Nick’s area and asked where the trees would be
located and how the plan would be adjusted related to the proposed congestion.
Bartley said a conditional use is just that. The City is almost obligated to issue a permit to an
applicant whom meets all requirements. He urged the City Council to consider what it is doing
by creating a conditional use and urged them to vote against it.
On the motion, Bezdichek, Brunner, Munsterman, Reed and Thomson voted yes and Bartley and
Whaley voted no; motion carried.
Resolution No. 11-08 – Assessment. Public Hearing and action was held on Resolution No. 11-
08, Proposed Resolution of Necessity for Street Assessment Project, 2008-03STI Downtown
Streetscape Project. Public Hearing – no comments were made. A motion was made by Bartley,
seconded by Brunner, to approve Resolution No. 11-08. A motion to amend was made by
Munsterman, seconded by Reed, that the interest to be charged on the unpaid balance shall be
0%. The City will waive the usual 10% interest on the unpaid balance of the water and sewer
services to the businesses on the normal 10 year repayment schedule. On the amendment, all
present voted yes; motion carried. A motion to amend was made by Whaley, seconded by
53
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Thomson, to clarify that the Brookings Municipal Utilities would financially participate in the
project and requested BMU be inserted in the following section: “…the city & BMU will assume
and pay for streetscape enhancements for water, sewer and storm sewer.” All present voted yes
on the amendment, motion carried. On the original motion as amended, all present voted yes;
motion carried.
Resolution No. 11-08
Resolution of Necessity for Street Assessment Project
2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
The City Council of the City of Brookings hereby declares the necessity of construction of the utility
infrastructure for streets of the City as follows:
Water service lines and sanitary sewer service lines for the collector street listed below:
A. Main Avenue from Front Street to 6th Street (approx. 1500 feet).
1. The general nature of the improvement is above set forth and reference for details
is hereby made to the drawings and specifications prepared by the City Engineer
and on file with the City Clerk.
2. The following materials shall be used for the utility service lines:
Sanitary Sewer Service Line: 6” PVC & miscellaneous fittings
Water Service Line: 4” PVC & miscellaneous fittings
3. The improvement is substantially uniform. The sanitary sewer service lines and
water service lines will be assessed per each to the corresponding property owner.
The following is an estimated cost of the utility service lines:
Sanitary Sewer Service Line: $2300 per each
Water Service Line: $4500 per each
The City and Brookings Municipal Utilities will assume and pay, from City funds, for
the streetscape enhancements, water main, sanitary sewer main, storm sewer and
street demolition and construction, which will include an 10” PVC water main, 8”,
10” and 18” PVC sanitary sewer main, gravel base course, curb and gutter, and
asphalt or concrete pavement to the approximate width of 71 feet back to back
of the curb.
4. A description of classes of lots to be assessed is as follows: The assessable lots and
tracts of land lying within one-half block or three hundred feet of the streets
hereinabove described, whichever is less.
5. The method of apportionment of benefits is as follows: The cost thereof to be
assessed against all assessable lots and tracts of land according to the benefits
determined by the governing body to accrue to all such lots and tracts from the
construction of the improvement. The assessed amount includes a 6% charge for
engineering and administration costs. The interest to be charged on the unpaid
balance shall be 0%. The City will waive the usual 10% interest on the unpaid
54
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
balance of the water and sewer services to the businesses on the normal 10 year
repayment schedule.
6. The above-described improvement shall be hereinafter referred to as 2008-03STI
Downtown Streetscape Project, which shall be deemed a description of the
improvement of the streets as hereinabove set forth.
Resolution No. 15-08 – Violation Fines. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thomson,
to approve Resolution No. 15-08, a Resolution setting forth a schedule of proposed fines for
violations of the Ordinances of the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 15-08
A Resolution setting forth a Schedule of Proposed Fines
for Violations of the Ordinances of the City of Brookings, South Dakota..
BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that
the following Schedule of Proposed Fines shall be effective as prescribed by law for all violations
of Ordinances set forth herein.
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED FINES WITH COURT COSTS
Section
Offense
Fine
Costs
Total Misc.
Offenses
6-3 Open Container (alcoholic beverage)
(Beer, wine, liquor in vehicle or on street)
49.00 51.00 100.00
6-142 Attempt to purchase 49.00 51.00 100.00
6-143 Misrepresentation of Age 49.00 51.00 100.00
6-73 Possession of Keg Restricted 49.00 51.00 100.00
70-35 Littering 49.00 51.00 100.00
58-33 Resisting an Officer 49.00 51.00 100.00
58-36 Fleeing from a Police Officer 49.00 51.00 100.00
58-161 Public Urination
(formerly Disorderly Conduct)
49.00 51.00 100.00
58-162 Disturbing the Peace – House Parties
First Offense
Second Offense (within 1-year period)
Third Offense (within 1-year period)
49.00
99.00
200.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
100.00
150.00
251.00
55
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Parking Offenses
82-428 Places where Prohibited 24.00 51.00 75.00
82-463 Illegal Parking (2 hour downtown or Medary Ave.) 24.00 51.00 75.00
82-465 Parking Prohibited during Snow Removal 24.00 51.00 75.00
94-431(2) Front Yard Parking Prohibited 24.00 51.00 75.00
Traffic/Driving Offenses
82-127 Failure to Comply with Warning Ticket 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-167 Traffic Signals 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-203 Duty to Provide Information 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-206 Unattended Vehicle 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-207 Property Damage 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-208 Immediate Notice 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-241 Driver’s License Violation 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-242 Age of Driver 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-243 License Plate Violation 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-244 Maximum Passengers 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-246 Driving on Sidewalk 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-247 Exhibition Driving 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-248 Following Too Closely 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-249 Following Fire Apparatus 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-251 Unsafe Backing 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-252 Driving Over Fire Hose 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-271 Driving on Left Side of Street 39.00 51.00 90.00
56
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
82-276 Driving on Divided Highway 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-277 Overtaking Vehicles/Passing to Left Required;
Cutting in Front
39.00 51.00 90.00
82-279 Passing in No Passing Zone 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-280 Duty of Driver of Overtaken Vehicle; Increasing
Speed
39.00 51.00 90.00
82-305 Speed Limit Designated
• Exceeding Limits
• 1-5 mph Over Speed Limit
• 6-10 mph Over Speed Limit
• 11-15 mph Over Speed Limit
• 16-20 mph Over Speed Limit
• 21-25 mph Over Speed Limit
• Over 25 (Court Appearance)
29.00
29.00
39.00
49.00
69.00
104.00
139.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
51.00
80.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
120.00
155.00
190.00
82-309 Reckless Driving 69.00 51.00 120.00
82-310 Careless Driving 49.00 51.00 100.00
82-232 Right Turn 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-333 Left Turn 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-334 U-Turn Restricted 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-337 Cutting Corner 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-362 Yielding Right-of-Way to Emergency Vehicles; Duty
of Driver of Emergency Vehicle not to Exercise Right-
of-Way Arbitrarily
39.00 51.00 90.00
82-365 Vehicle Entering Stop Intersection 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-366 Stop Required Before Entering from Alley, Building
or Private Road; Place of Stopping
39.00 51.00 90.00
82-367 Obedience to Stop and Yield 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-369 Stop at Railroad Crossing Signal 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-392 Obedience (One Way Streets & Alleys) 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-424 Manner of Use of Diagonal Parking Spaces 24.00 51.00 75.00
82-561 Lights on Vehicle 29.00 51.00 80.00
57
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
82-563 Obstruction of Vision 29.00 51.00 80.00
82-565 Exhaust System 29.00 51.00 80.00
82-603 Pedestrian Right-of-Way 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-605 Jay Walking 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-682 Operation of Snowmobiles on Public Parks, Streets,
Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks, Boulevards & Rights-of-
Ways
39.00 51.00 90.00
82-684 Operation of Snowmobiles on Public Property 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-721 Clinging to Moving Vehicles 39.00 51.00 90.00
82-751 Bicycle Offense 24.00 51.00 75.00
82-842 Driving Through Processions 39.00 51.00 90.00
Housing and Zoning Offenses
22-374 Agent Required 39.00 51.00 90.00
22-401 Licensing of Leased Dwelling Units 29.00 51.00 80.00
22-402 Filing of Application Forms 29.00 51.00 80.00
22-405 Payment of License Fees 29.00 51.00 80.00
22-432 Failure to Comply with Smoke Detector Requirement
• First Offense
154.00
51.00
100.00
(Suspended
on condition
of no similar
violations for
1 year.)
• Second Offense
154.00 51.00 205.00
• Third Offense
200.00 51.00 251.00
22-433 Failure to Comply with Exit Requirement
• First Offense
154.00
51.00
100.00
(Suspended
on condition
of no similar
violations for
1 year.)
58
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
• Second Offense
154.00 51.00 205.00
• Third Offense
200.00 51.00 251.00
22-434 Failure to Comply with Parking Requirement
• First Offense
154.00
51.00
100.00
(Suspended
on condition
of no similar
violations for
1 year.)
• Second Offense
154.00 51.00 205.00
• Third Offense
200.00 51.00 251.00
Zoning
94-123(c) First Offense:
94-124(c) 200.00 51.00 150.00
(Suspended
on condition
of no similar
violations for
1 year.)
94-125(c) Permitted Uses (Unlawful Use)
94-126(c)
94-127(c)
94-128(c) Second Offense:
94-129(c) 200.00 51.00 251.00
94-130(c)
All Other Zoning Ordinances Violations
Resolution No. 16-08 – Red Rink.
Weldon said on January 8, 2008, the City Council discussed the policy regarding animals being
allowed in the red rink at the Larson Ice Center; and directed staff to develop policy options for
various scenarios. Since then, the Park and Recreation Board provided the Council with a
recommendation to prohibit animals in the red rink and have exercised their option for an
expanded summer season for ice that begins in July. This still leaves April through June as
59
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
possible months for this issue to be considered. To that end, City Attorney Steve Britzman drafted
the four resolutions as options for resolving this issue:
A) Resolution A is an outright prohibition of animals in the red rink which basically adopts the
recommendation from the Park & Rec Board.
B) Resolution B prohibits animals in the red rink except for permission from the City Council.
C) Resolution C prohibits animals in the red rink except for permission from the City Manager.
D) Resolution D maintains the current policy.
The practical effect of Resolution B and D are identical, except D is worded with slightly more
permissive language. Each of these can be further detailed to consider types of animals. For
example, the case-by-case determination could include distinctions between small and large
animals, livestock, birds, etc.
Weldon recommended the Council enact Resolution C since he believes this to be an
administrative action instead of a policy action and it is consistent with use determinations of other
public buildings. He said he didn’t believe it is in the best interest of the Council to be overseeing
facility use, operations, management, and scheduling of public buildings. If Resolution C were
adopted, his approach would be to meet with representatives of both sides in an effort to reach
a win-win situation for everyone. If that does not occur, he would make a decision based on his
determination of the best interest of the facility.
Munsterman noted that the City Manager had presented four different options for Council
consideration.
ACTION: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to approve Resolution A. A
substitute motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Thomson, to approve Resolution C.
Discussion: Bartley spoke in favor of proposal C in that it places the decision making with the city
manager and removes the political element. Thomson agreed and felt all parties’ needs would
be satisfied with that option. She’d like to see animal events prohibited, but this leaves the option
for a special circumstances request to be determined by the city manager.
Brian VanLiere, Member of the BISA, spoke against Resolution C and urged support of Resolution
A. He has been involved with BISA for 15 years and wants this issue put to a rest. Adoption of
Resolution C would result in the issue continuing. He expressed concern placing the decision
making with the city manager, citing the city of Brookings has had several managers in the last
nine years. The facility cost $5.3 million to build with city money and donated funds and labor.
BISA is non-profit volunteer organization with thousands of volunteer hours invested in the
program to provide recreation opportunities for our youth. Any funds raised are put back into
the program and into improvements to this facility. People that have donated time and money
have strong feelings and don’t feel animals in the facility is a proper use due to issues with air
quality, dust, and smell. They understand the one time exception for the Arabian Horse show. If
there is a significant economic impact from animal events, then the city needs to find a more long-
term solution. BISA hopes to continue to grow with camps, skating tournaments and eventually
year-round ice.
Mike McClemans distributed a number of documents to the Council and voiced his objection to
Resolution C. He used the documents to illustrate his point that there was always the intent that
the facility be animal free.
60
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Bartley clarified that the documents were drafts and were not signed or adopted. He noted
that this often happens in a big project where there are many discussions and drafts and the final
project doesn’t always end up the way it was envisioned. He reiterated that these were draft
documents and not officials.
On the substitute motion, Bartley and Thomson voted yes, Bezdichek, Brunner, Munsterman, Reed
and Whaley voted no; motion failed.
Discussion on the original motion (Resolution A):
Bartley urged the Council to reconsider. All ordinances are subject to revision and can be
changed at a later date.
Reed said he would support Resolution A and has never changed his stance on this issue. He
realized growing up in Brookings that people volunteer and invest their money in order to do
things just one step better than other communities. He cited other examples of where the residents
and city have gone above and beyond.
Brunner agreed with Reed, noting that he wasn’t here when this was discussed and has relied on
community feedback to make his decision. The original intention of the facility was for skating
and that’s what the funds were raised for and he wants to honor that.
Thomson said she wishes BISA the best of luck in their year round skating efforts and appreciated
them providing a potential solution (suggested building). She’s not saying that she’s in support of
animals in the facility, her position is that this issue should be administrative.
Harry Mansheim said he has been involved with hockey for 40 years and the founders of the
BISA program had no intention that the building be used for anything other than skating.
Mike McClemans distributed additional handouts and questioned what the Council’s original
policy was regarding the facility and its use. He cited discrepancies in various policy documents
and voiced concerns regarding city staff. He reiterated that the policy would be no animals and
that was understood in August 2000 when the second penny funding was involved.
On the original motion (Resolution A); Bezdichek, Brunner, Munsterman, Whaley, and Reed voted
yes and Bartley and Thomson voted no; motion carried.
Resolution No. 16-08
Resolution Establishing the Policy of the City of Brookings Concerning Use of the Red (competition)
Rink of the Larson Ice Center for Animal Events.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes it is again necessary at this time to establish a specific
policy concerning use of the red (competition) rink of the Larson Ice Center for animal events, and
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Board as a recommended action to the City Council
approved a motion which provided: The Park and Recreation Board prefers that animal events
61
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
not be scheduled in the Larson Ice Center Red rink and reaffirms that priority use of the Red rink
continues to be for ice skating programs on a year-round basis, and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that prohibiting animal events within the red rink constitutes
the best policy to preserve and enhance the quality of the red rink’s infrastructure, and will also
be consistent with the City’s priority for use of the red rink as an ice skating facility,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota, as follows: That effective immediately, the red (competition) rink of the Larson Ice Center
shall not be used for animal events, and in accordance with this policy, animals shall not be kept,
penned or permitted upon or within the red (competition) rink of the Larson Ice Center.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
City of Brookings
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
62
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
February 26, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 5:00
p.m., at City Hall with the following members present: Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed and Tom Bezdichek. Scott
Munsterman and Ginger Thomson were absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City
Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
Prior to the meeting, the City Council members and staff received training on the new
televised meeting system and AV equipment. Deputy Mayor Tim Reed called the
meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. for the work session.
Code Enforcement. City Manager Jeff Weldon reviewed the following proposal that
was prepared to address code enforcement issues.
“The Brookings City Council has directed staff to develop a modification to the rental
inspection and property maintenance enforcement program with the ultimate goal of abating
and mitigating properties that fall into a condition that constitutes a nuisance or is
otherwise unsafe for occupancy pursuant to City Code. This applies to all property whether
it is residential or commercial property; rental or owner-occupied in use. The directive is
aimed at more aggressive enforcement of violations.
Scope of Inspections-rental residential licensing: (Ch. 22, Article VI)
Current policy is to license all rental units with scheduled inspections approximately 2-4
years covering the following items:
1) Life-safety issues of smoke detectors and size of egress windows
2) Number of tenants occupying rental units
3) Zoning including parking regulations
More frequent inspections are done in response to complaints or requests for such
inspections.
The Code Enforcement Officer in the Engineering Dept. is responsible for smaller residential
buildings of seven units or less. The Fire Marshal is responsible for larger rental complexes
over seven units in size.
Scope of Inspections-all properties: (Ch. 22, Article V and Ch. 62, Article III)
All properties are subject to property maintenance ordinances for nuisance abatement
regardless of use.
Current practice/status of enforcement: City staff is current on license renewal of small
rental units and their inspections. City staff is behind on license renewal of large rental
units and their inspections.
Most property nuisance inspections are conducted on a complaint basis or when witnessed by
staff as being clearly visible as a nuisance from the public right-of-way.
The process of mitigation is to send a written notice to the property owner citing the code
nuisance violation and giving the owner a reasonable amount of time to remedy the
nuisance. The goal of the City is to achieve compliance with the code; not to unnecessarily
63
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
pursue fines, litigation or issue any more citations than necessary. Approximately 90
percent compliance is achieved after the first letter to the property owner. Re-inspections
are conducted and second notices are given for failure to comply. In extreme cases,
litigation is necessary. It is the goal of the City to achieve compliance as quickly as possible
with the first notice in as amicable a manner as possible. Length of time given to remedy
condition shall be at the discretion of the enforcing officer and shall take into consideration
the severity of the condition and any history of prior offenses.
Review of applicable City Codes
A review of the above described City Codes indicates there is sufficient statutory authority
to support the current as well as more aggressive enforcement practices.
Recommendations for modification to code enforcement procedures
1) Re-organization of duties: Consolidate all rental inspections (large and small structures)
in the Engineering Department for a uniform and streamlined procedure.
2) Re-organization of duties/Fire: Having been relieved of large rental inspections, the Fire
Marshal should concentrate on commercial structures and other Fire Code issues of
property.
3) Vegetation/weed control code enforcement: The Engineering Department should assume
vegetation and weed mitigation from the Park Department as part of the overall
property maintenance inspection. The Park Department would still be responsible for
abatement of weeds when necessary. Croplands and wetlands are exempt.
4) Snow on sidewalk code enforcement: The Street Department will continue to abate
violators of the snow removal from sidewalk ordinance by dispatching street crews to
correct the deficiency and sending a bill to the property owner. It is anticipated most
complaints will come directly to the Code Enforcement Officers. This will maintain the
current practice.
5) Increased level of enforcement: The Engineering Department would be responsible for a
more aggressive approach to code enforcement pertaining to nuisance abatement not
merely relying on complaints but canvassing the community for violations. In addition,
inspections should include situations, that left unabated, could constitute a public health
hazard including but not limited to those that harbor rodents.
6) Record-keeping: The Engineering Department would develop a comprehensive record-
keeping system of rental licensing inspections as well as property maintenance
inspections to quantify the inspections by type and compliance on a monthly and annual
basis. The Fire Marshal would do the same for commercial inspections.
7) Public visibility: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff would become
more visible by (a) wearing certain items clearly identifying them as code enforcement
personnel such as possibly shirts, jackets, coats, badges, ID card; (b) driving a city vehicle
clearly marked as a code enforcement vehicle. In visiting with property owners, hours of
work may need to be adjusted to early evening during the summer months to find more
people at home where appointments may be necessary.
8) Public education: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff should
undertake a comprehensive public education program about the rental licensing program
and the property maintenance requirements in an effort to proactively achieve
compliance before they become a nuisance. This also promotes good customer service.
Activities for additional public education could be: PSA’s in the newspaper, Shopper, and
local radio stations; information on the city website, annual mailings about the
regulations to the rental license-holders; information at the SDSU housing office; utility
billing inserts; discussion topics for service club speakers’ bureau, to name a few. A
more formal communication relationship should be developed between the City and SDSU
64
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
housing office to identify/report housing issues. Prior to launching the new enforcement
procedures, an extensive public relations efforts should be undertaken.
9) Legal action may be used: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff, the
Fire Marshal (where applicable), and the City Attorney need to be prepared to
aggressively prosecute offenders that do not comply or otherwise abate the nuisance
after the City has exhausted all reasonable means to achieve compliance. Monetary fines
to the maximum extent of the law should be pursued. The Police Department will
enforce certain code enforcement provisions under their statutory authority and there
should be a clear distinction in the type of violations enforced by civilian staff as
opposed to law enforcement.
10) Other duties as assigned: The Engineering Department’s Code Enforcement staff could
assist with other enforcement items tangentially related to property maintenance where
inspections currently are insufficient. Some of these areas including but not limited to:
signage, home occupation inspections, occupancy compliance, monitoring construction
sites, sidewalk safety inspections, park playground safety inspections, illegal storm sewer
discharge connections, illegal mobile home park modifications, minor zoning issues,
minor building code issues.
Clearly, additional labor resources will be necessary to implement a more aggressive code
enforcement and rental licensing program. The City Council has authorized $60,000 in
additional financial resources in the 2008 budget to address this issue and staff is
recommending one additional staff person be hired to assist the current staff with
undertaking this revised program. This amount would be used to hire a staff person and
implement the measures enumerated in Items 1-10.
This additional staff position would be classified in the staffing and compensation as Code
Enforcement Officer at Pay Grade 8, which is the same as our current code enforcement
position. This would be a second identical position and will provide for dual coverage and
cross-training but some specific duties may be segregated for efficiencies. The City Engineer
would supervise this additional position.
The Brookings City Council has directed staff to develop a modification to the rental
inspection and property maintenance enforcement program with the ultimate goal of abating
and mitigating properties that fall into a condition that constitutes a nuisance or is
otherwise unsafe for occupancy pursuant to City Code. This applies to all property whether
it is residential or commercial property; rental or owner-occupied in use. The directive is
aimed at more aggressive enforcement of violations.”
James Pedersen provided a brief history of this issue and commended the City
Manager and City Council on the proposed plan. He also noted that the proposed
neighborhood watch program would be worthwhile to consider. Gary Winterfeld also
commended the Council and Manager on the plan.
Weldon called attention to #5 of the plan noting it will be the major component of
this program being successful. Should the City carry through on these efforts, it will
result in an increased level of complaints on those who have been served code
enforcement violation. He cautioned the Council to expect calls from those
individuals and asked for their support of him and city staff.
65
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Bartley agreed that people will complain and feels it’s important that staff be
properly trained to handle those complaints. Policy is the Council’s job and it’s the
staff’s job to enforce it.
Bezdichek asked when the position would be filled. Weldon said sometime in April or
May.
Weldon said staff’s other priorities will be public education and computerized
tracking methods.
Reed was very complimentary of the plan and suggested the council review it in a
year to evaluate the results and take public feedback. He didn’t see any further
council action on this item, citing it would be administrative at this point.
Updates from Senator Johnson’s Office. Matt Astleford, a staff member from the Senator’s
Sioux Falls Office, provided a brief update on local issues.
Creation of a Complete Count Committee. Council Member Tim Reed reviewed the
following proposal regarding the creation of a Complete Count Committee (CCC) and
presented his proposal for Council consideration.
• US Census Accuracy: Appropriation of Federal Funds, Accurate local statistical
data (Retail Attraction, Average Income), Data for the community (Housing needs),
and How big is Brookings & Brookings County.
• What is a Complete Count Committee (CCC): A major vehicle for planning and
implementing local, targeted efforts that will uniquely address the characteristics
of our community.
• Why form a CCC?: To make everyone in the community aware of the 2010 Census;
to motivate the community to participate by filling out the census form; and to
utilize local knowledge, expertise, and awareness campaign targeted to the
community.
• What are the goals of a CCC?: Develop a community-specific 2010 Census
awareness campaign; provide leadership in the promotion of 2010 Census; and
commit to ensuring that every resident in our community is counted.
• Specific Activities of CCC’s: Develop local theme for census participation; create
and distribute community-specific promotional materials; work with local media to
promote census; and identify hard to enumerate areas and create a targeted
campaign for those areas.
• Timeline: Spring/Summer 2008 – Form CCC, Fall 2008 – Start creating plan,
Summer 2009 – propose budget to Governments (City & County), Fall 2009 –
Finalize plan, January 2010 – Monthly meetings, April 2010 – Implement plan for
Census Day and Census Week.
• CCC Membership: Council Member(s), City Manager / City Clerk, Community
Members, Media, SDSU Student Leadership, County Commissioners.
Britzman suggested a resolution to form this ad hoc committee.
66
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Whaley suggested the Council recruit elderly/retired citizens for this committee.
Dan Hanson, Planning & Zoning Administrator, said he has been the city’s chief liaison
with the Census Bureau for 15 years. The City created a Complete Count Committee
in 2000 with public education as their top priority. Accurate count of “group
quarters” housing was stressed. Group quarters consist of unrelated adults, such as
dormitories. Their biggest issue was to educate students to consider themselves as
residents rather than transients.
Reed asked if the city was in good shape regarding accurate addressing. Hanson said
there is a problem with the addresses in that the post office can reassign address
numbers and Post Office’s new software doesn’t recognize ½ and ¾ street addresses
(basement apartments, etc.). Getting the Postmaster involved in the Committee
would be a good idea.
Brunner asked what efforts were made in the 2000 process to list the people in the
resident halls. Hanson said their first attempt wasn’t the best and a better effort
could be made in this process.
Weldon said the struggle is how to count legal addresses. He asked if there are
Federal guidelines on how to consider the students.
No action was taken at this meeting. The Council will consider action to approve a
resolution creating a Complete Count Committee at a future meeting.
Update on joint collaboration efforts with County. City Manager Weldon reviewed
his memo from the Council packet highlighting various options he’s looked at.
“History: The City and County each independently undertook space needs studies concluding
the County needing 18,628 square feet and the City projecting a need of 20,161 square feet.
The County has responded by proposing construction of a new county administration building
between the Court House and the 1921 Building. The needs for the County appear to be
more imminent while the needs of the City appear to be more long-range. The greatest
deficiency of space needs in the City Hall is in the police department.
The City and County have generally discussed, as an alternative, acquiring more of the 1921
Building, continuing the renovation of this historic building to the balance of the first floor
and into the second floor with a combined joint city-county government center. The
property owner has offered a renovation package of $52/sf and buy-out package in 2010 of
$3.1 million for the entire building.
The County’s architect has projected renovation costs of the 1921 Building at $190/sf
contrasted with that of new construction at $172/sf. The County further desires to keep
county government offices in or near the current Court House square.
The County Board held a public input meeting on February 19 regarding the proposed new
construction of the county administration building. They described the space needs shortage
in the Court House and the proposal is to move most other county offices leaving the Court
67
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
House almost exclusively for court services. They are leaning toward siting a new county
administration building adjacent to the Court House. Reaction from the few audience
members who spoke was mixed. The County Board is leaving their options open but are on
record by a 4-1 vote of supporting this proposed location.
Combined city-county services in one building:
In my opinion, there are many advantages of putting city and county government offices in
the same building. There are many economies-of-scale to be achieved if properly planned
from the outset. Taxpayers are more interested in efficiency of government services than in
“turf” protection by bureaucrats. Fair and effective cost-sharing of combined facilities can
be achieved between governments. This can lead to “one-stop shopping” by the public. Such
office-sharing can even be expanded to include school district administration offices and
other ancillary agencies such as chamber of commerce, economic development agencies, etc.
The sharing of common space such as conference rooms, board rooms, restrooms, and
mechanical facilities can result in substantial cost savings. Consolidation can go beyond
simply sharing the building to actually consolidating services such as data processing, GIS,
property management records, zoning information, human services, elections, and payroll.
The list goes on. But striking the correct time for all parties with the right building
opportunity is the challenge to making any consolidation, whether physical or operational,
effective.
Analysis of city space needs:
The City is using all of the available space in the current City Hall with very little ability to
effectively add any staff to the current building with regard to administration, engineering,
and finance departments. At current staffing levels, the current building meets our needs
with the exception of the Police Department. There are significant space and operational
deficiencies in this older portion of the building. There are, however, major advantages to
retaining city operations, police, and a fire station in the same building.
Options for the city to address future space needs include:
1) Consider adding a second floor to the existing city hall (will require a structural
analysis).
2) Consider acquiring the Sawnee Hotel building, demolishing it, and using it for a city
hall and parking lot expansion.
3) Consider a joint city-county government center in the 1921 Building.
4) Consider a joint city-county government center in a new construction project.
5) Consider constructing a new city hall building exclusively.
6) Consider acquiring the old First Bank & Trust building for a new city hall.
If the city were to move from the current building, it could be used for expansion of the
Police Department converting city hall into a Municipal Public Safety Facility with the
current fire station. Alternatively, if city offices were to move, the current building is well-
suited for other public or private sector offices and it has excellent adaptive re-use.
With regard to option 2, I have contacted the owner of the Sawnee Hotel. At the time of
writing this memo, the owner and I have yet to connect. Hopefully, I will have an update at
the meeting.
With regard to option 5, constructing a new building does not seem feasible, or even
necessary now but it may be a viable option 7-10 years from now based on the projections of
68
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
the study. Today’s construction costs would be approximately $3.5 million for a new city
hall building. Escalating construction costs are sure to drive this number up considerably.
With regard to option 6, I have toured the bank building. It has a main floor and a lower
level with substantially more square footage than the main floor as it extends west under
the parking lot. The building is older than it looks, built in the late 50’s, and has
approximately 20,000 square feet so it meets our space needs requirement in raw square
footage. The building is ideally located downtown near the Court House square and has the
architectural appearance of a municipal building. It has good on and off-street parking
access. The building will take a considerate amount of interior re-construction for interior
office spaces which can easily be achieved. If we wish to consider this option, we will need
to hire an architect for a professional evaluation. The building has been expanded, the roof
replaced, and the HVAC (heating-ventilating-air conditioning) system upgraded and appears
to be well-maintained.
The only significant down-side I can see to the bank building is there appears no viable way
to construct suitable council chambers within the building. Ideally, the council chambers
should be part of city hall on ground level with easy access from both the interior of the
building as well as outside doors. The main floor does not appear large enough to hold the
council chambers plus the offices for city services most needed by the public for good
customer service.
There are, however, two options to resolve this issue that could be explored.
First, it appears a council chambers could be added to the south of the building into the
parking lot with outside public access from 5th Avenue. This would involve removing the
drive-up canopy and losing approximately seven parking spaces.
Second, we could leave the council chambers in its current location in the lower level of the
current city hall building. While it would be ideal to have the council chambers in the same
building as city hall, it is certainly not necessary.
After touring both the 1921 Building and the former First Bank & Trust building, I am of the
opinion the bank building is better suited to meet our future needs.
More cost-benefit analysis could be developed based on identifying other “what if…?”
scenarios.”
Weldon noted that he would be able to identify significant space needs problems in
City Hall, but there are issues of note in the police department.
Per Council direction, he sent a letter to the County Commission requesting a follow-
up meeting on this issue. Reed agreed that the Council should continue its discussion
with the County Commission on this issue to determine if it makes financial sense to
collaborate with the County.
There was Council consensus to hold a joint meeting with the County Commission.
That meeting is tentatively scheduled for March 18th.
69
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Sioux Falls tour invite by Mayor Munson. Weldon noted that it was brought to the
Council’s attention at a previous meeting by Mayor Munsterman that Sioux Falls Mayor
Dave Munson has extended an invitation to the City Council for a tour of Sioux Falls to
view the impact of private and public partnership with regard to development.
Specifically, the purpose of the trip would be to pick up hints on how to plan for big
picture growth development and how the City can position itself to address those
needs, stay ahead of the curve and respond to development. City Council, some city
staff and the media would be invited to participate.
Reed commented that the City Council toured the Sioux Falls council chambers when
they were considering televised meetings and felt it was a very positive experience.
He encouraged the Council to accept this invitation.
There was council consensus to move ahead with a tour.
Legislative Updates.
Tim Reed will be attending the National League of Cities Congressional Conference in
Washington, DC, from March 8-12 and asked for council action on its top priorities to
review with our congressional delegation. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded
by Bartley, to agree the top issues for Reed to report on would be the 34th Avenue
project, infrastructure financing for the research park, railroad safety components for
an in-town route, and the airport whichever track is selected. All present voted yes;
motion carried.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager responded to questions pertaining to
the action items on the agenda.
City Clerk Reports. Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, provided a briefing on future
agenda items and upcoming invitations and obligations.
City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Bezdichek asked if there was a city ordinance prohibiting bricked mailboxes on the
boulevard. Dan Hanson said there is a permitting process. Bezdichek also expressed
concern that someone may be feeding the birds downtown. He also asked if the 2 hour
parking downtown was enforced. Yes, on a complaint basis.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to approve the
consent agenda which included:
A. Agenda.
B. Action to appoint Pam Merchant to the Brookings Historic Preservation
Commission, term expires 1/1/2010.
C. Action on a revised preliminary plat of the Windermere Pointe Addition in the
SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
70
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 06-08 – Rezoning. First reading was held on Ordinance
No. 06-08, rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an
Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District
(1500 Block 20th Street South). Public Hearing: March 11, 2008
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 07-08 – Conditional Use. First reading was held on
Ordinance No. 07-08 -An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment
in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of
Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane). Public Hearing:
March 11, 2008
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 09-08 – Rezoning. First reading was held on Ordinance
No. 09-08, rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-
R50W from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District. Public Hearing:
March 11, 2008
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 10-08 – Building Code. First reading was held on
Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
Public Hearing: March 11, 2008
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 08-08 – Campaign Finance. A motion was made by
Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to approve Ordinance No. 08-08 - An Ordinance
Establishing State Law Requirements for Campaign Finance Disclosures for Municipal
Ballot Questions in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Public Hearing – Resolution No. 20-08 – Sidewalk Assessment. A public hearing was
held on Resolution No. 20-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-01SWR, Sidewalk
Assessment Project. No comments were made during the hearing. A motion was
made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to approve. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 20-08
Levying Assessment for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under
Project No. 2007-01SWR. (2007 Sidewalk Repair Sites)
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 sidewalk improvement heretofore designated as
Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR is the amount stated in the proposed
assessment roll.
71
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
2. The assessment for Sidewalk Assessment Project No. 2007-01SWR is hereby
approved and the assessment thereby specified are levied against each and every
lot, piece or parcel of land thereby described.
3. 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 9-43-30 to 9-43-41, South Dakota Compiled
Laws of 1967, as amended with interest of 10% on the unpaid balance.
4. Assessments amounting to less than $300.00 shall be paid in one payment.
Public Hearing – Resolution No. 21-08 – Alley Assessment. A public hearing was held
on Resolution No. 21-08, Levying Assessment for 2007-07STA, Alley Assessment
Project. No comments were received from the audience. A letter from Carl Kline
objecting to the project was noted for the minutes and the Council. A motion was
made by Bartley, seconded by Bezdichek, to approve. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 21-08
Levying Assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA
Whereas, the City Council has provided for the following work to be completed under
Project No.2007-07STA (Alley from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue between 4th Street and
5th Street)
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. 2007-07STA is the amount stated in the proposed
assessment roll.
2. The assessment for Street Assessment Project No. 2007-07STA 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 five (5) equal annual installments for alleys.
4. Such assessments, unless paid within thirty (30) days after the date of mailing of a
statement of account by the City, shall be collected by the City in accordance with
the procedure for Plan One in Sections to 9-43-51, South Dakota Compiled Laws of
1967, as amended.
5. Interest of ten (10) percent per annum shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the
assessment.
Funding to Transportation Providers. Weldon gave the following report to the
Council on the transportation issue.
At the last council work session, the Council heard a presentation from Brookings Area
Transit Authority regarding funding and services for this year. BATA’s service levels
have experienced a change due to the cessation of services from the taxi company.
Previously, the City Council provided supplemental funding to BATA in the amount of
72
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
$25,000, the Safe Ride program for $5,000, and the taxi service in the amount of
$50,000.
For the 2008 budgets, BATA and Safe Ride made budget requests while the taxi
service did not and all transportation funding was lumped together in an amount of
approximately $85,000 to be disbursed later. In addition, the Council approved
enabling legislation authorizing the Transportation Committee to further study
transportation issues. It was, and remains, unknown as to any transportation
initiatives this Committee may develop that would need funding. The Committee’s
work is just beginning.
In the meantime, these two requesting service providers are two months into their
fiscal year without their appropriation from the City. BATA’s budgetary request was
$50,000, double the previous year’s appropriation. In the absence of any necessary
appropriation for the taxi service and given the fact BATA is picking up service levels
previously met by the taxi service, the question of an additional appropriation for
BATA would be prudent. That was the purpose of the presentation at the last
meeting.
Weldon recommended the Council direct staff to make a budgetary appropriation to
the Safe Ride program in the amount of $5,000 and BATA in the amount of $25,000 for
their continued levels of service. He further requested the Council authorize an
additional $25,000 for BATA for their increased levels of service. This would leave
approximately $30,000 unencumbered in the transportation line item for future
issues.
A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Bezdichek, to approve a budgetary
appropriation to the Safe Ride program in the amount of $5,000 and BATA in the
amount of $50,000 for their continued and increased levels of service for 2008. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Engineering Services with HDR. Weldon outlined the proposal from HDR Engineering
from Sioux Falls for the traffic modeling study for the proposed 34th Avenue/20th
Street South overpass improvement project. He noted that this project had gained
considerable attention due to traffic and safety concerns along 6th Street between
32nd and 34th Avenues. Many of the businesses in the industrial park have also brought
to our attention the need to develop an additional alternate route for employees who
work in the east I-29 industrial and commercial area. Discussions have revolved
around improving the surface of 34th Avenue from Prince Drive south to 32nd Street
South. In addition, the project would include construction of an overpass at I-29
along 20th Street South. This would require the construction of 20th Street South from
22nd Avenue South to 34th Avenue South. The latter section of this street extension
goes outside the city limits along the alignment boundary between Aurora and
Trenton townships.
73
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
According to the city engineer, such projects need a qualifying traffic modeling study
to be eligible for state and federal construction dollars in the future. The cost of the
study is $119,602 plus $5,954 in reimbursable expenses. This cost estimate is reduced
from an earlier proposal due to a revision in the scope of services pertaining to the
ramps at the 32nd Street South overpass as well as other considerations.
Weldon noted that the Mayor sent letters to the Brookings County Commission and the
East Brookings Business and Industry Association asking for cost participation in the
study. The East Brookings Business and Industry Assn. is a non-profit organization
initiated by Al Kurtenbach with membership from businesses in this area for purpose
of promoting additional economic development.
Weldon recommended the Council approve 50 percent of the cost contingent upon
favorable responses from these two inquiries. If either of the funding partners do not
materialize, staff would bring the issue back to the council with further
recommendations for options. He further recommended funding the city’s share of
the project using the remaining $30,000 of the unencumbered transportation
budgetary item and the balance of $32,778 from the sales tax reserve fund.
ACTION: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bezdichek, authorizing the city
manager to enter into a contract with HDR Engineering to conduct a traffic modeling
study in the amount of $119,602 plus $5,954 in reimbursable expenses HDR contingent
upon Brookings County and East Brookings Business and Industry Association each
participating in 25% of the total cost and the city participating in 50% of the cost.
The city will utilize $30,000 of the unencumbered transportation budgetary item and
the balance of $32,778 from the sales tax reserve fund. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Building Upon the Public Right-of-Way. Donna Ramsay, dba dhr Design Services LTD,
made application to the city of Brookings on February 19, 2008, to request permission
to build in the public right-of-way at 310 4th Street, Brookings, South Dakota.
History: During October, 2004, the City Council discussed the issue of building in the
public right-of-way. The City Council approved Resolution No. 68-04 which
established criteria for building in the public right-of-way and Ordinance No. 24-04,
which established exceptions to building in the public right-of-way.
Ordinance No. 24-04 states that the City Engineer shall review the application and
issue a recommendation to the City Council.
The following is the City Engineer’s report regarding the application and her
comments summarizing her position regarding each of the criteria in Resolution No.
68-04:
1. The applicant shall explore other alternatives that might remove the need for the
use of public property.
74
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
“We have not been provided with documentation showing how other alternatives
were explored. Two examples would be exploring the possibility of converting a
window into an accessible entrance or constructing a recessed doorway. An example
of the documentation of these or other alternatives would include “why” a window
entrance couldn’t be used or why the doorway couldn’t be recessed. The applicant
could also describe why the ramp couldn’t be built at another entrance or location,
and why the ramp couldn’t have been on the inside of the building so there was
access to the restrooms. Mr. Ramsay indicated verbally that the size of the deck is
necessary for ADA purposes, but did not provide any other documentation. This
criterion has not been met.”
2. Applicant is required to have the property surveyed by a licensed land surveyor to
determine the actual location of property lines.
“The applicant provided a land survey which is included and the City’s land survey by
CDI is also included. There are minor differences between the surveys, but the
general conclusion is that the deck does encroach into the public right-of-way.”
3. Applicant shall apply for a permit and include an accurate site plan showing
exaction location of the proposed structure and the severity of the intended
encroachment into the public right-of-way.
“The applicant submitted the drawing provided by their land surveyor, which is
attached. However, we have requested additional information about the deck
including: dimensions of the deck (height above ground, length, width, ramp
dimension), rise and run of the ramp, dimensions to the bottom and top rail height
and spacing between spindles. The applicant indicated verbally that the height of
the deck is 39 inches. This additional deck information is required on any building
permit for a deck to assure it conforms to the building code. This deck is subject to
the 2003 International Building Code because it is a commercial building. The
requested information has not been received at the time of this memo, and I will
update the City Council verbally as to the status of this criterion. This criterion has
not been met.”
4. Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance policy with a hold harmless
clause for the life of the structure located in the public right-of-way. This
requirement shall also apply to succeeding owners, specifically indemnifying the City
of Brookings from any liability resulting from the construction and location of the
structure in the public right of way. Prior to the transfer of property which includes
a structure in the public right-of-way, the seller shall notify the buyer of the
liability policy requirement.
“Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Liability Insurance, and has indicated that
they are not able to obtain a hold harmless clause. I do feel there is a liability issue
for the City regarding an obstruction in the right-of-way, and it is unknown if the
75
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
City could transfer this liability to the owner of the structure. There is also a
liability concern as to who would pay for repair costs if the deck was damaged by a
vehicle.”
5. The encroachment must not diminish sight lines at any sidewalk and street
intersection.
“The sight lines to the south for pedestrians traveling east on the sidewalk are
diminished due to the proposed location and bulk of the deck.”
6. The encroachment into the public right-of-way will not be granted for more than
30% of the width of the sidewalk measured from the property line to the back of
curb of the adjacent street. In no case shall the encroachment into the public right-
of-way exceed a distance of 36 inches.
“The deck encroaches approximately 14% into the public right-of-way sidewalk,
which has a total width of 11.5 feet. The encroachment is less than 36 inches.”
7. Said encroachment in the public right-of-way shall be removed if the principal
building is removed or destroyed.
“Applicant states they will comply with this criterion.”
8. Materials used to build the structure in the public right-of-way, as well as its
height, proportion, and scale, shall be architecturally compatible with the principal
building and adjacent buildings. The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
shall promptly review the architectural compatibility of the proposed structure and
provide official statement comment to the City Council (City of Brookings Code of
Ordinances Chapter 46, 10-97 (a) (b)).
“The materials used to build the structure conform to the building code. The
Brookings Historic Preservation Commission will provide comments regarding this
criterion.”
9. If the structure is not designed to be permanent in nature, it should be durable
enough to function properly in its intended service to the principal building.
“Applicant intends to properly maintain the structure.”
10. The structure in the public right-of-way shall be attached to the principal
structure or have its own frost footing.
“This structure is not required to have a frost footing according to the building code,
and it conforms to this criterion.”
76
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
11. Upon removal of the structure from the public right-of-way, the applicant shall
reapply for a new permit before building a new structure in the public right-of-way.
“Applicant states they will comply with this criterion.”
Based upon the lack of information for Criterion 1 and 4, diminished sight lines and
the liability issue of an unnecessary obstruction in the City right-of-way, the City
Engineer recommended denial of this application for the structure in the right-of-
way. City Manager Weldon concurred with the staff’s recommendation and
recommended denial of the application.
Deputy Mayor Reed asked the applicants to discuss their application.
Charlie Larson, Boyce Greenfield Law Firm, spoke on behalf of Donna Ramsay.
Larson said Mrs. Ramsay owns the old fire hall/city hall in downtown Brookings.
Larson said Mrs. Ramsay originally appeared before the City Council in 2004, this issue
went to court, she was convicted and now she’s back before the Council. He said
Ramsay sought a building permit in 2000 while doing renovations and she claims was
advised by city staff that her deck was included in the permit. She further claimed
that city staff advised that the building must be compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and fire safety. She was okay with this requirement, wanting
equal access, so proceeded to construct a deck to provide access. The project was
near completion in 2004 when the building inspector retired and Ramsay said other
city staff informed her that the deck wasn’t attached to the structure and needed a
permit. Larson said Ramsay applied for a permit and was denied because the
structure encroached on the sidewalk. She then came before the City Council
requesting a permit and the Council didn’t take action. The Council instructed the
city attorney to form criteria for applying to build on the right-of-way. Larson said
Mrs. Ramsay was prosecuted for building the deck, fined, and the SD Supreme Court
affirmed that conviction. However, the Court said she wouldn’t have to pay the fine if
she applied for a variance and complied with the criteria.
Larson noted that Mrs. Ramsay’s last recourse in the matter may be civil action
through the ADA.
Larson said the deck as constructed, is ADA and life safety compliant. Ramsay has
been asked to remove the deck and if that is done the building would no longer be
compliant. He noted that Mrs. Ramsay wants to stick up for herself and people with
disabilities. She is asking and wants to comply with ADA and life safety, but is not
allowed to because of slight encroachment on sidewalk.
Larson distributed a handout citing a particular article. He read the following:
“Common Problem: City governments fail to consider reasonable modifications in
local laws, ordinances, and regulations that would avoid discrimination against
individuals with disabilities. Result - Laws, ordinances, and regulations that appear to
be neutral often adversely impact individuals with disabilities. For example, where a
77
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
municipal zoning ordinance requires a set-back of 12 people from the curb in the
central business district, installing a ramp to ensure access for people who use
wheelchairs may be impermissible without a variance from the city. People with
disabilities are therefore unable to gain access to businesses in the city. Requirement
– City governments are required to make reasonable modifications to policies,
practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability.
Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws, ordinances, and
regulations that adversely impact people with disabilities.”…
Larson said the Federal government requires that cities make reasonable
modifications to their policies, practices and procedures and there is a method to
enforce this provision.
Larson reviewed each of the criteria and the city engineer’s statements and made the
following comments:
#1 – The applicant shall explore other alternatives that might remove the need for
the use of public property – Larson said this has already been done and Ramsay
worked with city staff. He said city staff told her to make the building ADA compliant
and this (deck) was the only way to do that. Due to the historical nature of the
building, other options were not feasible. He noted that Ramsay was encouraged to
get expert report. Larson handed out a report on the building from TSP, Inc. dated
June 27, 2007. The report from the Sioux Falls architect which included a review of
building codes from the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation,
National Preservation guidelines to include the National Trust and State Historic
Preservation Office. He read the last paragraph of the report for the Council: …
“Charles Larson asked me “after reviewing the historical plans and conducting a
personal site visit, do you have an opinion as to whether there are any other
alternatives to make the Old City Hall comply with federal law egress requirements?”
My answer is; any solution should not impose undo hardship of the building owner
(key reason for granting variances) and should avoid modification to the structure
whenever possible. The only feasible way to accomplish compliance is through the
use of an exterior ramp and stair system to allow access through the front main
entry, in keeping with the original historic intent of the structure. This solution is
the configuration of the stairs and ramp as they are currently installed.”
#2 – Applicant is required to have the property surveyed by a licensed land surveyor
to determine the actual location of property lines – Larson said Ramsay has submitted
a survey from Steve Kor. The city had one done but denied Ramsay use of it, citing it
was not public information or property. She paid to have one professionally done
which shows a smaller encroachment than was noted in the city’s survey.
#3 – Applicant shall apply for a permit and include an accurate site plan showing
exact location of the proposed structure and the severity of the intended
encroachment into the public right-of-way – Larson said he had no idea this was an
issue until yesterday. A site plan has been given. The survey shows the
78
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
encroachment. Walking by it will also show the encroachment. He referred to a
photo in the study. Information was not provided on the deck height and slope, but
it’s never been an issue before. Larson said every time his client complies with one
criteria another issue comes up. The deck is ADA compliant and it clearly complies.
#4 – Applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance policy with a hold harmless
clause for the life of the structure located in the public right-of-way. This
requirement shall also apply to succeeding owners, specifically indemnifying the City
of Brookings from any liability resulting from the construction and location of the
structure in the public right of way. Prior to the transfer of property which includes
a structure in the public right-of-way, the seller shall notify the buyer of the
liability policy requirement - Larson said his client does not have a hold harmless
clause and has provided a letter from their insurance company that says there is no
such thing. However, her insurance policy covers the deck. If someone trips over
the deck, Ramsay is covered up to $2 million. Ramsay has provided a copy of the
liability policy to the city. If someone crashes into deck, the person who crashed
would be liable. There is not a liability issue on the deck. This criteria is impossible
to comply with.
#5 – The encroachment must not diminish sight lines at any sidewalk and street
intersection – Larson said this has never been an issue until yesterday. He suggested
the Council walk by the deck to see that there’s no sight diminishment down the
block. He said her planters sit farther out on the sidewalk than the deck.
#6 – The encroachment into the public right-of-way will not be granted for more than
30% of the width of the sidewalk measured from the property line to the back of
curb of the adjacent street. In no case shall the encroachment into the public right-
of-way exceed a distance of 36 inches – Larson said the deck doesn’t violate the 30%
or 36” rule.
Larson cited no problems with items #7-11.
Larson said the City Council has the authority to provide this variance. He noted that
other business owners have obtained variances for items on the sidewalk. In 2004
Ramsay was treated very formally with her request by city staff. However, when
Robb Rasmussen from Sioux River Cyclery sent a letter to Dan Hanson asking for a
variance for ornamental reasons, Hanson responded with a letter to go ahead.
Ramsay asked two months later and her request was denied. He agreed that his
client has been a public figure and someone who is controversial. He felt his client
has been clearly treated differently by the city than others. He said to the council
that this was an opportunity to protect its citizens. The codes and ordinances of the
city are in place to protect people. He is asking to make her building safe by
complying with the ADA. If the City Council finds any one of the criteria are not
satisfied, it must return to ADA guidelines for direction. City government is required
to make accommodations to allow for equal access to businesses within Brookings.
79
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Council discussion:
Whaley noted that the date of the report was eight months old, dated June 27, 2007.
When did we start this project? Larson said in 2000 and the deck was 2004. The
report was completed after receiving a letter from the city attorney stating they
needed an architect. In order to appease the city, Ramsay had the study done.
Whaley noted that the insurance certificate is dated January 22, 2008. She asked if
none of this was thought of before when building. Larson said there was insurance
and renewed in January. His client has no objection to keeping insurance on the
project and it isn’t an issue.
Weldon said the city council has a recommendation from staff to deny this request.
The reason is simply that there is no good reason to allow private use of public right-
of-way. The issue may be explored further on the ADA issues. However, there has to
be a way to avoid the encroachment and made accessible. No one can just build on
someone else’s property and take control over it. As for the liability on the deck, the
reality is what lawyers will encourage a client is to sue everyone, particularly if the
party who crashed into the deck has no ability to pay for damages. They will sue the
city with deep pockets because we allowed an encroachment on a public right-of-way
and the city would not be immune from liability.
City Attorney Steve Britzman said Ordinance No. 24-04 expanded the decision making
process with respect to building on a public right-of-way and was intended to be
fitting within the ADA. The ordinance contemplates modifications to zoning policies
to evaluate requests for variances to satisfy the ADA. The City has taken steps by
these policies set in ordinances to be receptive to ADA. One problem is if there are
other alternatives to provide access. With a public sidewalk, the City must evaluate
access to all people. An encroachment request must be balanced if it could pose a
problem to those on the sidewalk. Those individuals with physical disabilities, there
must be a balance, because the city must also take all disabilities into account
including sight impairments. The Council must weigh whether or not encroaching on
the sidewalk is better than the alternative. The report handed out at the meeting is
along the lines of what he suggested to the law firm one year ago. Britzman had
suggested Ramsay have an appropriate expert look at building and allow city to
participate in the process to ask questions and evaluate the conclusions. This report
is along those lines; however, the city never heard any thing back from that discussion
of March 2007 and feels there were some alternatives that had not been
contemplated within the building. The question of if additional accommodations are
legally required has not been researched. He said the city has taken adequate steps
to look at this issue and provided enough flexibility to accommodate the request.
That is why procedures were created. He expressed concern that the city has not
participated in any degree to looking at other alternatives prior to installing the deck
on the public sidewalk into perpetuity.
80
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Bartley said the City Council just received the architect’s report and has not had a
chance to review it. He referred to the conclusions in the report. The architect
recommended the building’s primary entrance be the accessible entrance. Bartley
said that was the architect’s opinion, citing other buildings secondary entrances are
accessible and not the primary. Bartley clarified that this report is the finding of an
architect and is only one opinion and is not a conclusion based on law. This report
doesn’t look at the other accessibility options.
Larson said other alternatives have been researched. He noted the stairs inside the
building separating the fire hall from the city hall portions. His client purchase a lift
to provide access inside the building but it wouldn’t work. The deck access is
preferred because there’s no other way to provide access without spending
considerable funds and without destroying the historical integrity of the building. He
apologized for the oversight of not getting the report to city staff earlier and said it
was his fault. Interior changes would cost too. She can’t recess the door due to
historic issues.
Brunner asked if there was a way to ramp the inside of the building. No.
Bartley asked if it would be appropriate for the architect to state that (ramp option)
and list all the alternatives considered and why they weren’t feasible. Larson said
the report does include a code analysis and recommendations.
Bartley disagreed saying the report doesn’t show the other alternatives explored
along with supporting documentation. It’s only the architect’s opinion. Larson said
his client was asked to get an expert opinion on other ways to provide access and she
has done that. Now the City wants a supplemental report. He noted that the court
order on the variance expires in 2 months and there are things they’ll need to do
procedurally to file documents.
Bartley said the report was produced in June 2007 and there’s been plenty of time to
get it to the City Council. He’s not comfortable with making a decision and criteria
#1 regarding other alternatives is the toughest and doesn’t see answers to that
question in the architect’s report and documentation. Bartley said if his client’s
architect has additional data on other alternatives considered and rejected, that
should be provided to the city staff and council for review. Then the City Council can
make their decision based on it.
Larson said other alternatives were explored and that’s what is required. A report
isn’t specified. His client can list why each entrance doesn’t work.
Bartley asked for that information to be put into written form to review. Other
options related to historic preservation were not explored. He’d like to see
documentation that those alternatives were explored and why they won’t work
(stairs, too narrow, bearing wall, etc.). Larson offered to review each during the
81
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
meeting in great detail. He also commented that he could get that information from
the architect. Bartley said that would be more appropriate.
Reed said the information must come through city staff before it goes to the City
Council. He noted that this is a paid report done by the client’s architect. The City
must qualify the report’s findings through review by the city staff and city attorney.
Larson objected saying this has been going on for over three years, citing the city
finds another problem every time. The instructions given to his client were broad.
He can give the architect these instructions, but there could be additional
information requested and be back in front of the council again.
Bartley said the additional information should be provided to staff and they can make
a recommendation to the Council. He’d like to see the data provided to the city
engineer and city attorney as soon as possible and they make recommendation to the
City Council at the March 11th meeting based on that data.
It was noted that staff needs time to review and the issue won’t come before the City
Council unless the staff feels the issues have been researched and addressed.
Bartley urged that the data be provided quickly and that the city staff review it
quickly.
Bezdichek suggested labeling each entrance from the report exhibits for a clearer
understanding of each area and accessibility options.
Larson clarified that the former fire hall is already compliant with the street level
access, but there are interior stairs to old city hall. The old Fire Hall and old City Hall
are separate structures.
Britzman asked if there would be any restriction from city staff contacting the
architect. Larson said no, that wouldn’t be a problem and he would notify the
architect.
There was Council consensus to require the applicant, Mrs. Ramsay, provide a written
report from her architect addressing each alternative explored. City staff will
prepare a report for council review with the ability to contact the architect for
clarification.
Reed expressed concern regarding an architect’s report being presented at the
meeting which doesn’t allow time for thorough review. The City Council has a
responsibility to weigh the considerations of accessibility and public safety with this
request for encroachment on public land.
Larson said the City Manager brought up a number of points and cited there is no good
reason to allow an encroachment. Just two months prior to the city denying his
82
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
client’s request, the city allowed an encroachment for ornamental reasons. He said
there are many lawsuits about this (access and public right-of-way). The city
manager said a person can’t just take over public land. Larson argued that the
Federal government says cities have to allow compliance with the ADA. As for
liability, everything is a potential liability and hopes $2 million would be enough
coverage. He urged that Federal law trumps city building codes. His client is only
asking to be ADA compliant for the protection of its citizens.
Larson asked if the city had issues with any of the other criteria.
Weldon said a scale drawing is still required.
Reed said more discussion on liability insurance.
Jackie Lanning, City Engineer, clarified that even after the approval process is
completed and if Mrs. Ramsay is granted a variance, a building permit would still be
required for something that is completed. Reed clarified that even if the Council
approves the variance, the project could still be denied if done incorrectly.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All
present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
83
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08 - Establishing Charges for
Collections and Disposal of Refuse in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota.
This resolution raises rates for both the garbage collection and the landfill. The new rates
would go into effect on January 1st, 2009. The last rate increase went into effect on
January 1, 2006. Traditionally the rates are reviewed and increased every three years
to give stability to the local solid waste industry. The rate increase is based on the
inflation of the past three years as well as projections of inflation over the next three
years. The factor used for this three year rate increase is 10%. The resolution raising
rates is normally passed approximately six months in advance of raising the rates so that
the haulers and cities in our service area have adequate time to adjust their contracts and
raise rates if needed in their jurisdictions.
The garbage collection rate will increase from $15.00/month plus sales tax to
$16.50/month plus sales tax. This increase should raise approximately $75,000 in
additional revenue over a period of a year. The reason for the rate increase is the
steady increase in the costs for: diesel fuel, workers compensation insurance, health
insurance, and replacing capital (garbage trucks).
The landfill rate will increase from $36.50 /ton plus a $1/ton for DENR, plus sales tax to
$40.00/ton plus a $1/ton for DENR, plus sales tax for regular garbage. The landfill rate
for items such as roofing, concrete, and trees will increase from $18.25/ton plus sales tax
to $20.00/ton plus sales tax. This increase should raise approximately $130,000 in
additional revenue over a period of a year. The reason for the rate increase is the
steady increase in costs for: diesel fuel, workers compensation insurance, health insurance,
and replacing equipment (compactors and crawler loaders) as well as paying off the
state loan for Trench 2 West.
84
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Resolution No. 22-08
Establishing Charges for Collections and Disposal of Refuse
in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Be It Resolved By the City of Brookings As Follows, TO WIT:
I. Monthly charges For Family Domestic Units
The cost of collection and disposal of refuse for family domestic units shall become a
charge against the occupant of each dwelling and shall be payable monthly together with
other public service charges as defined by this City. A fair and reasonable charge for the
collection of refuse at each regular collection time, from each domestic unit shall be sixteen
dollars and fifty cents ($16.50) plus sales tax per month. The monthly charge shall be
based on one automated cart provided by the City or one or more fly tight container (s)
provided by the citizen for those areas not yet served by the automated collection system.
The monthly charge shall be based upon once a week pickup for garbage and refuse and
once a week pickup for recyclable material.
A fair and reasonable charge for a second automated cart provided by the City for the
collection of garbage and refuse shall be three dollars and thirty cents ($3.30) plus sales
tax per month.
Yard waste (grass and leaves) will be collected once per week. The yard waste will be
collected in special bags sold by the city at various locations. A fair and reasonable
charge for the bags to cover the cost of the bags, the collection and composting activity
shall be eighty cents ($.80) per bag. The various locations may charge an agent’s fee.
II. Monthly Charges for Commercial Establishments
The cost of collection and disposal of refuse from commercial establishments or the public
schools or any other institution or facility not otherwise classified herein shall become a
charge against the occupant of such commercial establishment and shall be payable
monthly together with other public services as defined by this City. A fair and reasonable
charge for collection of the contents shall be a minimum charge for collection of the
contents shall be a minimum of thirty three dollars ($33.00) plus sales tax per month for
five (5) carts with an additional charge of three dollars and thirty cents ($3.30) plus sales
tax per cart thereafter.
Apartments and other institutions or facilities utilizing containers for trash receptacles, shall
be charged eighty-five dollars ($85.00) plus sales tax per month for a one and one-half
(1 ½) cubic yard container, one hundred-nine dollars ($109.00) plus sales tax per month
for a 2 cubic yard container, one hundred thirty-two dollars ($132.00) plus sales tax per
month for a 3 cubic yard container, one hundred fifty-six dollars ($156.00) plus sales tax
per month for a four (4) cubic yard container, one hundred eighty dollars ($180.00) plus
sales tax per month for a five (5) cubic yard container, two hundred five dollars
($205.00) plus sales tax per month for a six (6) cubic yard container, two hundred
twenty-nine dollars ($229.00) plus sales tax per month for a seven (7) cubic yard
85
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
container and two hundred fifty-three dollars ($253.00) plus sales tax per month for a
eight (8) cubic yard container. Said charges shall be based upon a twice a week pickup.
The charges for each additional pickup per week at the same location, with the necessity
of moving the collection vehicle shall be twenty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($27.50) plus
sales tax for one and one-half cubic yard container, thirty-three dollars ($33.00) plus
sales tax for a two (2) yard container, forty-four dollars ($44.00) plus sales tax for a
three (3) yard container, fifty-five dollars ($55.00) plus sales tax for a four (4) yard or
larger container.
III. Monthly Charges for State Institutions
The cost of the disposal of refuse from a state institution or facility located within the city,
where the institution or facility maintains its own collection service, shall be at the same rate
or charge imposed upon licensed commercial garbage haulers, as provided in Paragraph II
and which rate or charge shall be imposed on each load whether the same be a partial or
full load. The director of solid waste management shall keep a monthly record of the
number of loads brought to the sanitary landfill each month by a state institution and said
institution shall be billed at the end of each calendar month on the basis of the number of
loads of refuse brought to the sanitary landfill during the prior month.
IV. Charges for Use
Each commercial hauler and each commercial establishment hauling its own garbage,
rubbish and waste material shall pay to the city for the use of the sanitary landfill, per
vehicle load, the following charges:
A. For loads of refuse material not requiring additional compaction or processing, such as
roofing, concrete or trees, the sum of $20.00 per ton plus state sales tax will be
charged. Minimum fee will be $5.00 for 500 pounds of material.
B. For loads of waste material requiring additional compaction or processing (paper, food
waste, plastic, lumber, grass, leaves, etc.) the sum of $40.00 per ton plus $1.00 per ton
state fee, plus state sales tax will be charged. Minimum fee will be $5.00 per 250
pounds of material.
V. Landfill Charges for Special Waste
Each hauler of special waste, including tire, asbestos and petroleum contaminated soil, shall
pay to the City of Brookings for the use of the landfill, the following charges, plus
state sales tax:
For Tires
Passenger car tires $ 2.50
Light pickup tires $ 3.75
Truck tires $ 8.75
Tractor tires $ 25.00
For Asbestos
Per bag $ 5.00
Per ton $ 40.00
For petroleum contaminated soil
Waste oil (per ton) $ 11.50
86
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Gas (per ton) $ 8.25
Mixed Gas & Diesel (per ton) $ 8.25
Diesel Soil (per ton) $ 8.25
VI. Tires
No tires will be collected on city garbage routes. Tires may be disposed of at the landfill
at the prices listed in Paragraph V. (a)
VII. Appliances
White goods having freon will be eleven dollars ($11.00) per appliance, plus state sales
tax.
VIII. Mobile Homes
Mobile homes will be one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) per home, plus sales tax.
IX. Effective Date
All charges established by this resolution will be effective January 1, 2009.
Passed and approved this 11th day of March, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
87
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street
sweeper.
Staff recommends approval of the bid for Street Department’s 1999 Elgin
Pelican Sweeper in the amount of $25,000.
Resolution No. 25-08
Resolution Awarding Bids
Street Department Street Sweeper
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bid for one (1) 1999 Elgin Pelican
Sweeper, Serial Number P-3062-S:
Sanitation Products, Inc. $25,000.00
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved that the bid from Sanitation Products, Inc., in the amount of
$25,000.00 for above-mentioned sweeper be accepted.
Passed and approved this 11th day of March 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
88
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, Title V Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Grant.
TO: Brookings City Council & City Manager
FROM: Bryan Gums, Brookings Police Chief
I would like to provide you with information regarding a new grant that has become
available. The grant is a Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant. This is a three
year grant with a maximum of $35,000 per year with a 50 percent match from the City/
County/ School district. The match can be in the form of dollar for dollar or an in-kind
match.
Each year the inmate population rises in prisons and jails with very little prevention money
put towards avoiding these increasing numbers. We would like to implement a program at
the Elementary School level whereby at risk children are referred to the States Attorney’s
office Prevention Coordinator for an intervention process. The most important part would
be to identify the children in the early stages and then create a program for the entire
family.
Contact has been made with all the Elementary School Principals in Brookings, the Sheriff,
Chief of Police, and the States Attorney’s office and we have received positive comments
from all involved and have their support in such a program.
Since the grant money is available to help prevent delinquencies, one of the projects we
would like to develop is that of a Court/School Liaison position. The first phase in such an
endeavor is early identification of children at risk and thereafter seeking to provide
necessary services to the child and parents, so as to aid the child in succeeding in school,
as well as in the home and community, thereby preventing the development of an anti-
social adolescent at risk of entering the Juvenile Justice System.
We would like to hire a part-time individual to work closely with the schools, law
enforcement and the courts in early identification and to help prevent delinquency,
criminal behavior and /or incarceration. Our intention is to have this person working out of
the State’s Attorney’s Office so there is a consequence that could be given should the
family decide not to cooperate. When school personnel identify the at risk child, the
Liaison would develop certain programs for the child and family to help that child succeed
in school and the community. The program may include referral to counseling, assigning a
mentor for the child, working with parental education and so on.
This position will require record keeping and documentation. Our hope is that if we keep
the child and parents engaged in school, we will prevent future behavior and anti-social
problems. If we are selected to receive the grant we will need to obtain the in-kind or
cash match from the County/ City/ and School District. We are hopeful that we can rely
on the shared financial support from these entities to better serve at-risk families in our
community.
89
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Resolution No. 19-08
Resolution for Title V Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is committed to the protection of its citizens and
particularly its youth and children; and
WHEREAS, a collaborative effort between the City of Brookings, Brookings County, and
Brookings School District have identified an opportunity to provide early identification of children
at risk; and
WHEREAS, to that end, the three entities have agreed to participate in a 3-year Title V
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grant from the SD Dept. of Corrections, Council of Juvenile
Services; and
WHEREAS, the city’s commitment in this participation for 2009 will include a dollar-for-
dollar match in the amount of $5,833.33, or a maximum of $17,499 for three years; and
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings agrees to provide a letter of support to the Council of
Juvenile Services.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brookings duly authorizes the City
Manager/Mayor of the City of Brooking to sign and submit all documents for the Title V Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention grant.
Passed and approved this 11th day of March 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
____________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
90
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action on Resolution No. 23-08, authorizing the city manager to
enter a liquor operating agreement renewal with David Olson
Inc., dba Danny’s.
The City of Brookings enters into operating agreements for a ten-year period with a
renewal at 5 years. The operating agreement for Danny’s Lounge, located at 703 Main
Ave. South, is up for renewal. Resolution No. 23-08 would allow the City Manager to
enter into the remaining five years of the agreement.
Resolution No. 23-08
Danny’s Lounge Operating Agreement Renewal
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council
hereby approves a Lease Renewal Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management
Agreement between the City of Brookings and Danny’s Lounge for the purpose of a liquor
manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of
Brookings at 703 Main Ave South, also known as Danny’s.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years.
Passed and approved this 11th day of March 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
91
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4G. Action on a request from First Bank and Trust to abate 2007
taxes in the amount of $2,000 for Lots 13-14, Block 13, Second
Addition (vacant lot).
First Bank and Trust has submitted a request to abate a portion of the 2007 property
taxes on the above referenced property in the amount of $2000. The bank removed the
building on February 19, 2007 for the new parking lot. They are requesting an
apartment of 10 months of the 2007 taxes. Total due is $2400 and the request is for
$2000. The County Director of Equalization recommends approval.
92
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4H. Action to appoint Dick Smith as the Assistant City Attorney.
To: Jeff Weldon, City Manager and Shari Thornes, City Clerk
From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney
Date: March 6, 2008
Re: Appointment of Assistant City Attorney
Subject to City Council approval, I am planning to retain Attorney Dick Smith, former
Executive Director of the BEDC, as an Assistant City Attorney, to fill in for me in Magistrate
Court or at City Council Meetings if I am sick or on vacation or otherwise unable to attend.
Dick has worked for many years before coming to Brookings as a City Attorney for
communities in Iowa, and he has been briefed on my responsibilities. He is a licensed
member of the State Bar of South Dakota.
Previously, I had not found an attorney willing to serve in this role, and although there
may only be a handful of occasions each year, I will be able to take a full week of
vacation or two, which I have been unable to do unless it included a State holiday.
93
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4I. Action on Resolution No. 24-08, to Change the Functional
Classification of Certain Streets in the City of Brookings
DOT Funding History:
South Dakota Department of Transportation receives funding from the Federal Highway
Fund for roadway projects in the state. SDDOT allocates funding under their Statewide
Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), to each city to be used on roadway projects. The
city may use their fund balance each year, or they may bank several years to fund a
large project. Currently, Brookings is allocated approximately $450,000 each year.
Current Funding Situation:
The SDDOT has changed the STP program. In the past many years, the federal funding
given to a city could be exchanged or “swapped” into state funding at a rate of
approximately 85%, which gave more control to the local city entity for their project. This
was a benefit to cities, because the city staff could perform the design work,
environmental documents were not required, the DOT review was very short, the City
could perform the bidding, and City staff also performed the inspection and
administration. All of these factors allowed the City to design and bid a project quickly,
and also kept the costs lower for the project.
I learned this winter that SDDOT has eliminated the “swap” program due to a severe
funding shortage. This mandates that all projects using the STP funds must follow federal
regulations. The new process involves a full environmental review which takes
approximately 12 months, DOT right-of-way office review, the DOT office performs the
bidding, and the DOT staff performs the inspection. These regulations slow down the
process significantly in addition to increasing the costs.
Federal Aid System:
In addition, the project must be on the Federal Aid System to be eligible for funding. The
City’s next urban project will be 34th Avenue from 6th Street to Prince Drive, which was
scheduled for 2009. I have found that 34th Avenue is not on the Federal Aid System.
DOT staff stated that the City may add 34th Avenue if a similar length street is deleted
from the Federal Aid System because the Brookings streets on the Federal Aid System are
at the maximum amount. Street Superintendent Koss Delfinis and I reviewed the Federal
Aid System and concluded that 7th Avenue between 3rd Street and 11th Street, and 11th
Street between 7th Avenue and Medary Avenue could be removed. These two streets are
in very good condition and would not require a mill and overlay in the next 10 to 20
years. These two streets also carry mostly residential traffic and are signed to prohibit
truck traffic, which makes them not as crucial to be on the Federal Aid System. Once these
streets are removed from the System, the City would maintain these two streets with
general fund dollars. I have enclosed a copy of the current Federal Aid System map,
which will be updated after this resolution is approved.
Procedure for 34th Avenue project:
The first step for the 34th Avenue project is to add it to the Federal Aid System, which will
be authorized with this resolution. The next step will be to update the STP Urban System
94
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
J. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 26th for a goal
setting retreat.
City Council action is required to hold a special meeting. The Council is scheduled to hold
a special goal setting retreat starting at Wednesday, March 26th, 2008, at the Swiftel Center.
97
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
K. Action to schedule a special council meeting on March 18th with the
County Commission.
City Council action is required to hold a special meeting. The Council is scheduled to hold
a special joint meeting with the County Commission on Tuesday, March 18th, at 4:00 p.m. in
City Hall.
98
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. INVITATION FOR A CITIZEN TO SCHEDULE TIME ON THE
COUNCIL AGENDA FOR AN ISSUE NOT LISTED.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
6. SDSU REPORT.
99
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 11-08 - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance
Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget
For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The
Operation Of The City.”
Public Hearing: March 25th
Date: March 4, 2008
To: City Council
From: Jeffrey Weldon, City Manager
Subject: 2008 Budget Amendment # 2
This budget amendment moves the money set-aside in contingency for the hiring of a code
enforcement officer within the Engineering Department. We will be transferring $30,672.
In November of 2007 we did a budget amendment for the Street Departments maintenance lines
however we did not amend the 2008 budget per the seven year plan submitted by the Street
Superintendent and the City Engineer. The additional money being added to his maintenance
lines is $42,000.
As per conversations held with Council during the budgeting process last year we are addressing
the issue of insufficient funds within the industrial land to complete the street and sidewalk
improvements necessary when land is sold. Discussion was held last year about the lack of funds
and it was agreed we should wait until our financial reports were available so we could analyze
our end of year increases or decreases to funds.
9 The increase in fund balance at the end of 2007 in the General Fund is $1,460,000. We are
proposing a transfer of $355,000 from the General Fund to Industrial Lands.
9 The increase in fund balance at the end of 2007 in 25% Sales & Use Tax Fund is $439,800.
We are proposing a transfer of $355,000 from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to Industrial
Lands.
9 The cash balance in the Industrial Fund is (485,000) at this time. We were committed to
streets in 2007 and were anticipating the land sale of $1.2 million. As you are all aware the
land sale did not happen. The transfer of $710,000 will cover what was spent in 2007 and
complete the construction of 32nd Avenue in 2008.
Budget amendment # 2 is also recognizing additional expenses in 2008 for projects uncompleted
in 2007.
1) OPEB Actuarial.
2) Playground equipment at the Aquatic Center
3) Improvements to the Moriarty Park
4) Cart paths
5) 15th Street South
6) Signage in the South Park per $10,000 Monteith donation given in 2007.
100
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 11-08
An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008
Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA:
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted budget Ordinance No. 27-07 containing contingency funds
for the creation of a new code enforcement officer,
AND WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 40-07 amending the 2007 budget
increasing the line items for street maintenance materials per a seven year plan submitted after
the adoption of the 2008 budget,
AND WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 40-07 amending the 2007 budget
allowing the OPEB actuarial to be done,
AND WHEREAS, the Parks Department has three 2007 uncompleted projects (Moriarity Park, Cart
paths, and aquatic park equipment),
AND WHEREAS, the Parks Department received a donation in 2007 for the signage at the South
Park,
AND WHEREAS, the SDSU Wellness Center project was not competed in 2007,
AND WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution No. 32-07 declaring the necessity of
construction of 15th Street South,
AND WHEREAS, industrial lands were sold in 2008 declaring the necessity to construct 32nd
Avenue,
AND WHEREAS STATE LAW (SDCL 9-21-7) AND THE CITY CHARTER (4.06 (a) permit
supplemental appropriations provided there are sufficient funds and revenues available to pay
the appropriation when it becomes due,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the City Manager be authorized
to make the following budget adjustments to the 2008 budget:
101
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Budget Amendment #2 Revenue Expense
Non-Departmental 6,080 347,428
Public Works 72,672
Culture & Recreation 119,000
Total General Fund 6,080 539,100
Retail Development 9,200
25% Sales & Use Tax 355,000
75% Sales & Use Tax 500,000
Industrial Lands` 930,000 (300,000)
Special Assessments 250,000 500,000
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.
ALL ORDINANCES or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: March 11, 2008
SECOND READING: March 25, 2008
PUBLISHED: March 29, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
102
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
2008 2008 2008 2008
Adopted Amendment Amendment Amended
Non-Departmental Revenue Expense Budget
101-000-4-662-01 Rental Income 1,000 6,080 7,080
101-405-5-856-99 Contingency-Code Enforcement 85,000 (30,672) 54,328
101-405-5-422-03 Consulting/OPEB Acturial 7,346 13,100 20,446
101-405-5-856-96 Donation Match/Tear down building 0 10,000 10,000
101-495-7-899-02 Transfer Out to Industrial Land 0 355,000 355,000
Total Non-Departmental 6,080 347,428
Engineer Department
101-419-5-101-00 Regular Pay 391,089 25,486 416,575
101-419-5-120-00 FICA 30,714 1,950 32,664
101-419-5-121-09 Retirement 23,526 1,529 25,055
101-419-5-123-00 Group Insurance 74,775 967 75,742
101-419-5-130-00 Workmans Compensation 5,915 740 6,655
Total Personal Services Engineer 526,019 0 30,672 556,691
Street Department
101-431-5-426.19 Bituminious Material 24,000 26,000 50,000
101-431-5-426.22 Salt & Calcium Chloride 16,000 12,000 28,000
101-431-5-426.23 Sand 6,000 4,000 10,000
Total Street Department 46,000 0 42,000 88,000
Park Department
101-452-5-920-00 Equipment 2,000 50,000 52,000
101-452-5-940-00 Land Improvement/Moriarity Park 126,000 69,000 195,000
Total Park Department 128,000 0 119,000 247,000
Retail Development Fund
211-000-5-428-02 Electric and Water/DOT Building 0 2,400 2,400
211-000-5-428-03 Heat 0 6,800 6,800
Total DOT Building Expense 0 0 9,200 9,200
25% Public Improvement/Sales Tax
212-000-7-899-02 Transfer out to Industrial Lands 0 355,000 355,000
Total 25% Pulbic Improvement 0 0 355,000 355,000
75% Public Improvement/Sales Tax
213-000-5-856-67 SDSU Wellness Center 0 500,000 500,000
Total 75% Pulbic Improvement 0 0 500,000 500,000
Industrial Land
278-000-4-664-00 Sale of Land 50,000 220,000 270,000
278-000-6-700-00 Transfer in General Fund 0 355,000 355,000
278-000-6-700-04 Transfer in Sales & Use Tax 100,000 355,000 455,000
278-000-5-960-00 Street & Sidewalk Improvements 800,000 (300,000) 500,000
103
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Total Industrial Land 930,000 (300,000) 225,000
Special Assessment
280-000-4-663-45 Special Assessment-Current 400,000 250,000 650,000
280-000-5-960-00 Street & Sidewalk Improvements 150,000 500,000 650,000
Total Special Assessment 250,000 500,000
104
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings
8. Ordinance No. 06-08 - Rezoning the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section
36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B
District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District (1500 Block 20th
Street South).
Applicant: Dean Gulbranson and Tracy Odegaard
Proposal: Create a mixed density residential subdivision
Background: This area is currently undeveloped. Surrounding subdivisions and other vacant land
have been rezoned in the past to mostly high-density residential use. Smaller adjacent areas have
been zoned for low-density residential and light commercial use. The Vision 2020 Plan identifies
this area for future residential use.
Specifics: The east 300 feet of this acreage was zoned for low-density residential development in
October 2007. Subsequently, a row of lots was platted in the zoned area in December 2007.
The R-1B zone will transition into the R-2 District that runs through the center of the subdivision. A
wetland area to the northwest will abut the rear of a row of lots and remain as open land
through the identified channel. A high-density residential area and stormwater retention pond is
planned on the west side. The adjacent land to the west is zoned for R-3 and B-2A uses. Overall,
the rezoning proposal could result in approximately 140 – 180 additional dwelling units.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes, 0 no and one abstention to
recommend approval of the rezoning.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
105
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 06-08
An Ordinance to Change the Zoning within the City of Brookings
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of
South Dakota, described as follows:
the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from an Agricultural A District and Residence
R-1B District to a Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District.
In accordance with Section 94.7 of Article I of Ordinance 25-02 of the Code of Ordinances of
Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III and
IV of Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is hereby
altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of
Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: February 26, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: March 11, 2008
PUBLISHED: March 14, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
______________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
106
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
February 5, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission
to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John
Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith
Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan
Hanson, and others.
Item #6 – Dean Gulbranson and Tracy Odegaard have submitted a petition to rezone the SE¼
of the SW¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W from an Agricultural A and Residence R-1B District to a
Residence R-1B, R-2, and R-3 District.
(Kurtz/Cameron) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye except Howlett
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #6 – Dean Gulbranson, co-owner of the property, stated the plan for the
R-3 land was not finalized. The south and east sides of the R-2 area would possibly be twinhomes
with the northwest area next to the wetlands planned for single-family dwellings.
Keith Rounds, a neighbor, favored an extension of the R-1B zoning along the north side so
it matched with the zoning on his property. Cameron noted, however, that a large R-3 District was
adjacent to Rounds on the west and felt the R-2 was appropriate. Kurtz recommended that the
drainage channel area be identified as Ag since it was not part of the zoning proposal.
107
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Sec. 94-125 RESIDENCE R-1B SINGLE-FAMILY
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross density of
approximately five dwelling units per acre or less. The district permits single-family dwellings and
supportive community facilities such as parks, playgrounds, schools, libraries and churches.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title,
when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-1B Single-Family
District.
(c ) Permitted Uses. Single-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 Section 94-124(d)(R-1A).
2. Private school of general instruction.
a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector street.
3. Family day care.
a. Restricted to 12 or less children at any one time.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Vocational or trade school
2. Retirement or nursing home
3. Two family dwelling
4. Group home
5. Major home occupation
6. Public recreation facility
7. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery,
8. Private lake
9. Bed and breakfast establishment
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The R-1B district regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min Min Min Min Min Max
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Hgt
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family 10,000 10,000 75' 30' 8' 25' 35'
Two-Family 6,200 12,400 90' 30' 8' 25' 35'
Other Allowable Uses 10,000 75' 30' 10' 25' 35'
111
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing
homes or other similar group quarters where no cooking facilities are provided in individual rooms
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-1B 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-1B District shall be in
conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-1B District shall be in conformance with the regulations set
forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-1B District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in article II of this chapter
112
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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. Boardinghouse
11. Office
12. Bed and breakfast establishment
13. Fraternity/Sorority
14. Day Care Facility
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The R-2 district regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family
Dwelling 7,500 7,500 50' 25' 7' 25' 35'
113
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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 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.
114
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
(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.
115
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Sec. 94-127. RESIDENCE R-3 APARTMENT DISTRICT
(a) Intent. This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross density of
seven to twenty-four dwelling units per acre. This district provides for single-family, two-family,
apartments, condominiums, townhouses, fraternities and sororities plus support facilities such as
schools, parks, churches and community and public buildings.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in this title,
when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-3 Apartment District.
(c) Permitted Uses.
1. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private
garages, parking areas, etc.
2. Two-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages,
parking areas, etc.
3. Single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling
4. Apartment or condominium
5. Townhouse
6. Fraternity and sorority
7. Family day care
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following purposes in
conformance with the conditions prescribed herein:
1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-124(d)(R-1A).
2. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-125(d)(R-1B) excluding
family day care.
3. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-126 (R-2), excluding
single-family zero (0') side yard dwelling and family day care.
4. Day care facility.
a. A 4-foot high transparent fence shall be constructed between the play area and the
street when the play area is adjacent to any arterial or collector street.
b. A safe pick-up and drop-off area shall be provided.
5. Boardinghouse.
a. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residential properties with a four (4)
foot high opaque fence.
b. Asphalt or concrete surfacing of the lot will be required for all parking lots with five (5)
or more spaces.
6. Retirement or nursing home.
a. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent residential properties by a four (4) foot
high fence or equivalent landscaping.
7. Group home.
a. Applicants shall provide statements as to the type of supervision the home will have.
8. Domestic abuse shelter.
a. All parking shall be provided on the premises.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Public recreation facility
2. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge
3. Major home occupation
116
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
4. Vocational or trade school
5. Office
6. Bed and breakfast
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations: The R-3 district regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family
Dwelling 6,000 50' 20' 7' 25' 35'
Two dwelling
Units 8,400 65' 20' 7' 25' 35'
SF Attached
0' Sideyard 9,600 75' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
2 Units on non-party wall
3 Units 12,000 90' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-party wall
4 Units 14,000 105' 20' 0' or 7' 25' 35'
on non-party wall
Apts., Condos,
Townhouses*
(3 or more Units) 1,815** 10,000 75' 20' 7'*** 25' 45'
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Other Allowable Uses 6,000 50' 20' 7'*** 25' 45'
*Three hundred (300) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided for each dwelling unit exclusive of required
building setback areas, access drives and parking lots. Two thirds (2/3) of the landscaped area shall be located in a
continuous, single tract which contains no portions thereof which are not contiguous, adjacent and abutting to either the
entire width or entire length of said tract. 50% of the required landscaped area may be used for parking spaces in
excess of the minimum requirement. Parking lots shall be screened from single and two-family residential uses
according to Section 94-401.
**A maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre shall be allowed.
***The sideyard will be required to be increased to 10 feet when the building is 3 or more stories in height.
Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities, nursing
homes or other similar group quarters where no facilities are provided in individual rooms.
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-3 District are buildings and uses
customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-3 District shall be in
conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter
117
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set
forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-3 District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in article II of this chapter
118
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings
9. Ordinance No. 07-08 - An application for a Conditional Use to
establish an apartment in the Business B-2 District on Lot 6,
excluding the S179.35’ thereof, and Tract C of Lot 5, all in
Southbrook Addition (1000 Block of Southland Lane)
Applicant: Prairieland Partnership LLP
Proposal: Construct an apartment in the B-2 District
Background: The Southbrook Addition was zoned for commercial and high-density residential development
in 1977. The University Mall and Einspahr Ford were built shortly thereafter as were some apartment
buildings on the west side of Southland Lane. Southland Lane became a dividing line between B-2 uses to
the east and R-3 uses to the west.
In 1992, a company proposed to build several apartment buildings in the B-2 District. The project was a
three-phase development that involved 10 buildings with a maximum of 94 units. This was approved by
the Board of Adjustment, and the first (north) phase was completed in 1994. Phase III (south) was
completed in 1995. Phase II was not constructed.
Specifics: The proposal involves a 60 unit apartment building with one and two bedroom units. The plan
indicates surface and underground parking, one access drive to Southland Lane, perimeter landscaping,
and stormwater collection in the southeast corner.
The site contains two (2) acres of land with 286 feet of frontage width. Surrounding land uses include
apartments to the north, south, and west, and the University Mall to the east.
The minimum conditional use standards for establishing an apartment in the B-2 District are as follows:
Sec. 94-255. Apartments. (a) Generally. Apartments shall not be located in an area where they could
have a negative impact on adjacent properties due to their size or the traffic generated from such use. The
parking area shall be designed to have a minimal impact on surrounding residential properties.
In addition, supplemental zoning regulations address parking, landscaping, access, illumination, and
signage.
The unit density per acre for this proposal is 30. The surrounding apartment complexes have an 18 unit per
acre density based on a previous maximum density requirement that is no longer in the ordinance for this
district. An apartment complex further north on Southland Lane has a 28 unit per acre density that was
granted by the Board of Adjustment a few years ago.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the
Conditional Use.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
119
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 07-08
An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for an apartment in the
Business B-2 District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for an apartment on Lot 6, excluding the S179.35 feet
thereof and Tract C of Lot 5, all in Southbrook Addition with the following conditions:
none
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: February 26, 2008
SECOND READING March 11, 2008
PUBLISHED: March 14, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
120
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
February 5, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission
to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John
Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith
Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan
Hanson, and others.
Item #7- Prairieland Partnership LLP has submitted an application for a Conditional Use on Lot 6,
excluding the S179.35 feet thereof and Tract C of Lot 5, Southbrook Addition. The request is to
establish an apartment use in the Business B-2 District.
(Heuton/Gregg) Motion to approve the Conditional Use. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #7 – Peter Mork of Prairieland Partnership stated the apartment would contain one and two
bedroom units. Hanson noted that the plan indicated underground parking and surface parking at
the rear of the lot. Gregg inquired about the run-off from the site. Lanning replied that a final
drainage plan would be required prior to approval of the building permit application. Cameron
asked about traffic congestion on the street. Hanson responded if that occurred, options would be
to consider removing parking from one or both sides of the street.
Fargen inquired about the unit density of the project. Hanson replied that apartments in
the area generally had 18 units per acre, but no specific unit per acre density was in the
ordinance for apartments in the B-2 District.
121
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings
10. Ordinance No. 09-08 - Rezoning a portion of land in the NW ¼
of the SE ¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence R-1B
District to a Residence R-2 District.
Applicant: Dean Krogman
Proposal: Up-zone an unplatted parcel from low to medium density residential
Background: This area was part of a larger parcel that was rezoned from R-1A to R-1B in 1979.
A preliminary plat was in place at that time and was subsequently revised in 1992. The specific
area has remained undeveloped, but the construction of single-family homes has been ongoing to
the south and east. The land to the west is owned by a church and is vacant.
The map indicates the adjoining zoning districts and the current platting of lots and streets.
Specifics: This rezoning would permit single and two-family dwellings to be constructed, by right,
in this area. The existing platting does not allow for much flexibility in a redesign of blocks and
streets. Therefore, density may not change a great deal other than by the reconfiguration of lots
based on the 1992 preliminary plat.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 6 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the
rezoning.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
127
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 09-08
An Ordinance to Change the Zoning within the City of Brookings
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of
South Dakota, described as follows:
the E610 feet of the W1,110 feet of the S640 feet of the N1,150 feet of the SE ¼ of
Section 35-T110N-R50W
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from Residence R-1B District to a
Residence R-2 District.
In accordance with Section 94.7 of Article I of Ordinance 25-02 of the Code of Ordinances of
Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III and
IV of Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is hereby
altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 25-02 of the City of
Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: February 26, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: March 11, 2008
PUBLISHED: March 14, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
___________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
128
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
February 5, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Vice-chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission
to order on February 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were David Kurtz, Stacey Howlett, Mike Cameron, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John
Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos, and Curt Ness were absent. Others present were Scott Hodges, Keith
Rounds, Dean Gulbranson, Peter Mork, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, Planning Administrator Dan
Hanson, and others.
Item #8 – Dean Krogman has submitted a petition to rezone the E160 feet of the W 1,110 feet
of the S640 feet of the N1,150 feet of the SE¼ of Section 35-T110N-R50W from a Residence
R-1B District to a Residence R-2 District.
(Cameron/Kurtz) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #8- Heuton asked what the potential density was for a development with this proposal.
Hanson replied that the R-2 District generally permitted five to eight units per acre depending
upon whether the plans were for one-family or two-family dwellings. Cameron felt the zoning was
appropriate given the R-3 District to the north and the R-1B District to the south.
129
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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.
3. Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto such as private garages,
parking areas, etc.
4. 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.
15. Vocational or trade school
16. Retirement or nursing home
17. Group home
18. Major home occupation
19. Public recreation facility
20. Non-municipal library, museum, art gallery, community center, private club or lodge
21. Domestic abuse shelter
22. Townhouse
23. Apartment or condominium
24. Boardinghouse
25. Office
26. Bed and breakfast establishment
27. Fraternity/Sorority
28. Day Care Facility
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The R-2 district regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Max.
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Height
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft.
Single-Family
Dwelling 7,500 7,500 50' 25' 7' 25' 35'
134
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
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 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.
135
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
(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.
(k) Other Regulations. Development within the R-2 District shall be in conformance with the regulations set
forth in article II.
136
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings
11. Ordinance No. 10-08 - An Ordinance Amending Article II,
Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
The City approved Ordinance No. 18-06, which authorized the City to require a drainage plan
for all projects involving one acre or more of land area. This requirement was intended to
require a drainage plan for existing platted lots that were requesting a building permit.
However, there are a few final-platted lots in residential subdivisions that would be requesting a
building permit to build a residential home. Under the existing ordinance, the lot owner would be
required to submit a drainage plan and build a detention pond on one individual residential lot,
which was not the intention. A single family or two-family structure and driveway would not add
a substantial increase in runoff. This ordinance amendment would allow an exception to the
drainage plan requirement for single-family or two-family dwellings on a lot containing one acre
or more of area.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
137
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 10-08
An Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS THAT SECTION 22-36 AMENDMENTS OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
I.
Section 106.2.1 Site Plan
The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied
by a final drainage plan for all projects involving one acre or more of land area. The final
drainage plan shall conform to the city approved master drainage plan. All drainage facilities
including storm sewers, on-site detention, drainageways, detention basins and detention channels
shall be designed in compliance with approved engineering design standards and are subject to
approval of the City Engineer.
Exception: A final drainage plan shall not be required to be submitted with an application to
construct a single-family or two-family dwelling on a lot containing one acre or more of area.
First Reading: February 26, 2008
Second Reading: March 11, 2008
Published: March 14, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
138
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
Other Business
12. Presentation of Annual Financial Report to Council.
To: Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
From: Rita Thompson, Finance Manager
RE: Annual Financial Report
As per SDCL 9-22-21 we are required to report to the governing body at the first regular
meeting in March the receipts, expense and financial condition of the municipality, including where
the City’s funds are deposited. Attached please find the “2007 Unaudited Annual Financial
Report” for the City of Brookings
Please note this report is unaudited and it is anticipated that adjustments will be made. The final
audited report will be presented to the Council at a later date.
139
March 11, 2008 City Council Packet
142
13. Adjourn.