HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_03_25 CC PKTMarch 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
4:30 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.
4:30 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. Report from Council Member Tim Reed on NLC Conference.
2. Project Insight Reports from Council Members.
3. Liquor Application Presentations
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. 26-08, appointment of Election Judges for April 8,
2008 municipal/school election.
D. Action on an Abatement request from Gulbranson Development Company, Inc.
to abate a portion of the 2007 taxes in the amount of $588.00 for NE¼, NE¼
excluding exceptions but including S80’ N1430’ W238’ 34-110-50 (Timberline).
Assessor recommends approval.
E. Action on Resolution No. 27-08, STP – Urban System Priority List.
F. Action to extend the Temporary Fixed Based Operating Agreement for an
additional 60 days and approve $715 per month for an additional two months.
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.
1
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 12-08 - An Ordinance Revising The Composition, Appointment And
Criteria For Appointment Of Members Of The Brookings Health System Board Of
Trustees. Public Hearing: April 15th
8. Ordinance No. 13-08 – An Ordinance Amending Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Adoption of the 2006
International Building Code and the 2006 International Residential Code with Certain
Amendments Thereto. Public Hearing: April 15th
9. Ordinance No. 14-08 – An Ordinance Amending the Joint Jurisdiction Area Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to a private stable as a special exception in the Residence R-1A
District. Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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:
10. 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: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Discussion and possible 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.
Action: Discussion, Possible Action - Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. 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
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday @ 1pm, Thursday @ 7 pm & Friday @ 9 pm
The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org
If you require assistance, alternative formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please
contact Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at 692-6281 at least 3 working days prior to the meeting.
2
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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. Report from Council Member Tim Reed on NLC
Conference.
Council Member Tim Reed will give a report on the NLC Conference he attended
March 8-12, 2008 in Washington.
Estimated time (5-10 minutes)
3
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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. Project Insight Reports from Council Members.
The following communities agreed to participate in the City of Brookings “Project Insight”
survey. Council members were assigned communities and specific representatives to
contact. The Council members will review during the work session what information each
of the council members learned from their assigned communities. Also enclosed for the
public’s benefit is the cover letter and survey questions.
1. Thomson – Carbondale, IL and Missoula, MT
2. Bartley – Fort Collins, CO and Moscow, Idaho
3. Reed – Grand Forks, ND and Stillwater, Oklahoma
4. Bezdichek – Fargo, ND
5. Brunner – Laramie, WY
6. Whaley – Logan, UT
7. Munsterman – Manhattan, KS
Estimated Time (30 minutes)
4
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
‘Project Insight’ Questionnaire
Economic Development:
1) Has your City established specific steps, programs, or incentives to help grow your
economic base?
2) Does your City have a formal economic development plan/strategy in place?
3) Does the City have an affordable housing and/or other housing development strategy?
Code Enforcement:
1) What is your City’s plan for Code Enforcement and its implementation?
2) Does your City perform proactive enforcement or is it complaint basis only?
3) With respect to rentals, how does the City address the number of “unrelated” people
within a structure (i.e. non-family households)? How many are allowed per unit?
Development impact and other fees:
1) How does your City finance new subdivisions and developments?
2) Who pays for replacement of arterial roads?
3) Does your City use traditional bonding and assessments, fees systems, or development
impact fees?
4) Does your city have design guidelines to protect community aesthetics such as signage
and landscaping for new developments?
Financial:
1) What type of incentives does your City provide for economic development?
2) Does your City have any housing projects subsidized by tax increment funding?
Town & Gown:
1) What municipal services to you provide on campus (fire, police, public transportation,
other)?
Does the university pay the city for these services?
5
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Library:
1) In what ways does your public library participate in economic and/or cultural growth?
2) Does your public library share common resources with the University or Public School
District?
Event Center:
1) Does your community have a multi-purpose facility, arena or convention center?
If so, is it city, county, university owned?
If city owned, is it managed by the City or a management company?
Does it cash flow?
Partnerships:
1) Cite any examples of unique successful partnership arrangements your City has between
Universities/Colleges.
(i.e. community Park and Recreation agencies in the area of joint
development/management of recreation or wellness facilities, physical education or
sports facilities, arts and cultural facilities or programs)
6
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Scott D. Munsterman
Office of the Mayor
311 3rd Avenue
Post Office Box 270
Brookings, SD 57006
Phone (605) 692-6281
Fax (605) 692-6907
January 10, 2008
Mayor Doug Hutchinson
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Project Insight
Dear Mayor Hutchinson:
Our community is involved in assessing our growth needs in an effort to build a sustainable
competitive advantage for the next several decades. In collaboration with our local Division I
University, South Dakota State, we have engaged what we are calling ‘Project Insight’. Project
Insight is geared to help provide our community a road map with ideas from other ‘stretch
communities’ we have identified who are further ahead in their development as a community.
We chose your community to study because you match up with very similar characteristics of
our own, and have exhibited some ideal community qualities we desire to emulate.
We have designed a short survey to help us gather information about your community. We
were wondering if you, or someone designated from your office, could give us approximately
20 minutes of your time to visit about the enclosed questionnaire and gather the information
we need for our project.
Our office will make a follow up call to you within the next several days to confirm your
participation. We appreciate your effort to help us provide good, balanced growth in our
community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott D. Munsterman
Mayor
City of Brookings
7
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Enclosure
4:30 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. Liquor Application Presentations.
Representatives from BraVo’s, the Shamrock, Gonz Productions, Inc., and Star
Hospitality have been asked to formally present their proposals to the City Council.
Note that the applications were provided to the City Council on February 12th.
(2/12/08 Council Minutes):
“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
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.”
City of Brookings
Liquor Operating Agreement Application Process
The City of Brookings, South Dakota, has one on-sale liquor operating agreement available.
Applicants are required to provide the following information:
1. State Uniform Alcoholic Beverage License Application
2. Business Plan
3. Site Plan
4. Interior Building Floor Plan
5. Sunday Sales Application (if applicable)
6. Completed Background Check Form(s)
Please be advised that there are no Video Lottery licenses currently available.
Completed applications to include a business plan, site plan, floor plans and any other supplemental
information must be submitted to the City Clerk, 311 Third Avenue, not later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
February 8, 2008. For additional information or clarification, please contact Jeffrey Weldon, City
Manager, at 605-692-6281 or Shari Thornes, City Clerk, 605-692-6281, or email at
sthornes@cityofbrookings.org. Please be advised that the City Council may choose not to enter into any
new operating agreements.
Estimated Time - 45 minutes (10 minutes per applicant)
8
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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. 26-08, appointment of Election Judges for April 8, 2008
municipal/school election.
D. Action on an Abatement request from Gulbranson Development Company, Inc. to abate a
portion of the 2007 taxes in the amount of $588.00 for NE¼, NE¼ excluding exceptions but
including S80’ N1430’ W238’ 34-110-50 (Timberline). Assessor recommends approval.
E. Action on Resolution No. 27-08, STP – Urban System Priority List.
F. Action to extend the Temporary Fixed Based Operating Agreement for an additional 60 days and
approve $715 per month for an additional two months.
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. 12-08 – An Ordinance Revising the Composition, Appointment and Criteria for
Appointment of Members of the Brookings Health System Board of Trustees.
Public Hearing: April 15th
8. Ordinance No. 13-08 – An Ordinance Amending Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Adoption of the 2006 International Building Code and the
2006 International Residential Code with Certain Amendments Thereto.
Public Hearing: April 15th
9. Ordinance No. 14-08 – An Ordinance Amending the Joint Jurisdiction Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining
to a private stable as a special exception in the Residence R-1A District.
Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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:
10. 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: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Discussion and possible 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.
Action: Discussion, Possible Action - Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. Adjourn.
9
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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.
April 10th (Thursday)
4:00 pm
o Canvass Ballots
April 15th
5:00 pm
o Hospital Campus Expansion Plans.
o Annual Reports from City Volunteer Boards, Committees & Commissions
(informational)
o Revised policy on government access channel
o Future capital investments
6:00 pm
2nd readings:
o Ordinance No. ____ - modifying the membership requirements for the Hospital Board.
o Ordinance No. – An Ordinance Amending Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Adoption of the 2006
International Building Code and the 2006 International Residential Code with Certain
Amendments Thereto.
o Ordinance No. _____ - amending the Joint Jurisdiction Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining
to a private stable as a special exception in the Residence R-1A District.
o Public hearing and action on Res. ___ a resolution of intent to lease real property to a
private person
April 29th
o Action on volunteer appointments
May 13th
o Swearing In and Oath of Office Ceremony
o Mayor’s Awards for Historic Preservation
10
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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
March 24th
Monday
BEDC Annual Meeting
– Governor attending
5:30 pm social
6:15 pm dinner
Shamrock
March 25th
Tuesday
SD Rural Enterprise
Web Roundtable
Measuring Economic
Impacts – a tool for
evaluating your community
businesses
Noon
www.sdrei.org
605-978-2804
March 25th
Tuesday
City Council
4:30 pm
March 26th
Wednesday
Goal Setting Meeting
8:30 am – 4:30 pm
Swiftel Center
March 27th
Thursday
Candidate Forum
??
SDSU
March 29th
Saturday
Candidate Forum
??
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
Canvass Ballots
4:00 pm
April 15th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
April 29th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
May 13th
Tuesday
Big Sioux Water
Festival
9:45 am to 2 pm
May 13th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
May 18-21
ISCS Conference
May 27th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
May 29th
Thursday
Sioux Falls Tour
1-5 pm
Sioux Falls
11
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
4:30 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.
12
March 25, 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. 26-08, appointment of Election Judges for April 8, 2008
municipal/school election.
D. Action on an Abatement request from Gulbranson Development Company, Inc. to
abate a portion of the 2007 taxes in the amount of $588.00 for NE¼, NE¼ excluding
exceptions but including S80’ N1430’ W238’ 34-110-50 (Timberline). Assessor
recommends approval.
E. Action on Resolution No. 27-08, STP – Urban System Priority List.
F. Action to extend the Temporary Fixed Based Operating Agreement for an additional 60
days and approve $715 per month for an additional two months.
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. 12-08 - An Ordinance Revising The Composition, Appointment And Criteria For
Appointment Of Members Of The Brookings Health System Board Of Trustees.
Public Hearing: April 15th
8. Ordinance No. 13-08 – An Ordinance Amending Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to the Adoption of the 2006 International
Building Code and the 2006 International Residential Code with Certain Amendments Thereto.
Public Hearing: April 15th
9. Ordinance No. 14-08 – An Ordinance Amending the Joint Jurisdiction Area Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to a private stable as a special exception in the Residence R-1A District.
Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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:
10. 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: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Discussion and possible 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.
Action: Discussion, Possible Action - Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. Adjourn.
13
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 26-08, appointment of Election Judges for
April 8, 2008 municipal/school election.
D. Action on an Abatement request from Gulbranson Development
Company, Inc. to abate a portion of the 2007 taxes in the amount of
$588.00 for NE¼, NE¼ excluding exceptions but including S80’
N1430’ W238’ 34-110-50 (Timberline). Assessor recommends
approval.
E. Resolution No. 27-08, STP – Urban System Priority List.
F. Action to extend the Temporary Fixed Based Operating Agreement
for an additional 60 days and approve $715 per month for an
additional two months.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
14
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the City Council’s March 11, 2008 meeting is enclosed for council review
and action.
15
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
March 11, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City
Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley (via phone), Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed (via phone), Ginger Thomson, and
Tom Bezdichek. Acting City Manager Jackie Lanning, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City
Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Updates from First Planning District. Dick Edenstrom, Executive Director, provided a brief
update on First Planning District activities and distributed a report to the Council.
Swiftel Center Expansion Plans. Tom Richter, Swiftel Center Executive Director,
appeared before the City Council on February 12, 2008, to present the Swiftel Center’s
expansion plans. Richter reviewed the key points of the plan that were brought forward. He
said they have been working on the expansion plans since 1997 and now feel there’s an
opportunity to do an expansion. Key points to address in this expansion plan are to improve
storage space needs in the facility (office, kitchen facilities), the ability to host multiple events by
expanding the exhibit and meeting room space, and add a ballroom, turning the facility into a
full convention center. During the planning process his staff surveyed current clients and
meeting and convention planners in the area. They also compared the Swiftel Center to other
competitive facilities, obtaining information from their websites.
Richter noted that Dean Gulbranson was present at the meeting. Gulbranson is the private
developer interested in building an attached hotel to the new convention center portion.
Mike Bailey, Jr., Shamrock Banquet Hall, asked Richter how many events the Center plans to
host per year in the expanded facility. Richter said in 2007 the Center had had 395 event days
in the existing facility. In Year One of the Convention Center, they anticipate adding 45 more
event days and a percentage growth the following five years. He referred the Council to page
67 in the plan.
Thomson asked for clarification on the event days. She asked if these event days would be
current events that spill over into the new expansion. Richter said 275 event days would be at
the Swiftel Center, some of which would use the new convention space. The 45 new event
days are specific to the new convention center space and would be new events. He projects
an increase from 275 to 415 event days by Year 5.
Bailey asked what type of events the new 45 event days would include (i.e. trade, training).
Richter said the 12,000 sq. ft. ballroom would have retractable walls making it convertible into
six smaller break out rooms. They would convert the existing banquet rooms into smaller
meeting rooms and also utilize the county resource rooms. With all the new break-out
rooms, he’d hope to attract new convention business into the community to include state
association meetings and conventions, regional conventions and small national conventions.
16
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
The new convention center would not be to attract the “banquet-type” facility business that
they currently do. The current Swiftel Center facilities is an arena with an attached banquet
hall. They want to expand the facility to get new business that they not able to attract
currently because they don’t have the right type of facilities to go after these conventions.
Bailey said that many of these conventions do their planning six years in advance with the
earliest convention two years in advance. He asked Richter what he proposed to do with the
new facility in meantime. Would it sit empty? What would it be used for? Richter clarified
that they would not be building a convention center from the ground up. The expansion plan
would be adding to a living and breathing facility that has been operating for seven years. The
plan would expand the physical structure to make the business into a convention type facility.
The construction period is estimated at 12 to 18 months. When they start booking the
conventions and events, they’d leave a cushion and also would have the luxury of an operating
building. He noted that some of the current events held at the Center will expand and grow
with the addition of a convention center. Richter said the new center would not sit empty for
any period of time. The existing events already have room for growth. In their research, 70
percent of the average conventions are planned out 4.4 years in advance. In booking the
convention center, they would start with expanded current events, conventions that book 2 to
3 years out, and then conventions that book further out. Richter hopes to over-deliver in Year
One and feels the 45 additional event days number is conservative.
Bailey asked if there was a business plan showing the additional expenses planned for the facility
and how it would be covered. He said with the current city subsidy for the existing
structure, he didn’t see how expanding current clients into a new facility would cover expenses.
Richter said there is an extensive study included in the proforma. The Swiftel Center’s current
allotment from the city general fund to bridge the gap between operating expenses and revenue
is approximately $300,000 per year. The proforma shows that the number will increase into
the $330,000 range in Years 1 and 2 of the new convention center and drop to $280,000 by the
end of Year 5. He noted that these were approximate numbers. The city subsidy will virtually
stay the same. He itinerated that they are not building a new building from the ground up with
all new infrastructure and staff. All of that is already in place. They are expanding the business
model to pursue new business opportunities they can not currently attract – convention and
meeting business. The plan would be to add only two new full-time staff with the convention
center (sales person in year one and an events coordinator in year three). There would be
additional part-time staff needed based on events generated.
Bezidichek asked Richter if he had met with the Shamrock owners to discuss the expansion
plans. Richter said he and the city manager met with Mike Bailey Jr. and Mike Bailey Sr. to
discuss the plans and tour the facility. This occurred approximately 45 days ago. Some of
these issues were discussed and there are some new questions being raised tonight.
Brunner asked if there would be any opportunities for cooperation between the Swiftel Center
convention facility and the Shamrock Banquet Hall to assist the banquet portion. Richter said
he feels the Swiftel Center Convention Facility would become a convention destination with a
new market. With that new market, there would be a need for off-shoot meeting space and
banquet facilities. Right now when a large event comes to town, events are held in multiple
17
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
locations because the Swiftel Center isn’t large enough. Once the new Convention Center is
up and running there would be more time dedicated to the convention business and less
involvement in the smaller banquets and weddings. Those types of events would spill over into
other facilities in town such as the Day’s Inn, Staurolite Inn, and the Shamrock.
Bailey said he didn’t think Richter answered his questions about the financial shortcomings.
There will be a bond to be repaid, citing $300,000 per year and $80,000 per year on utility
expenses. Someone will have to pay for this. He felt this facility should have to stand on its
own and asked about plans to be self sufficient. Richter said as for the financing on the brick
and mortar of the expansion project, he didn’t have those specific answers. Those issues and
questions need to be addressed by the City Council and City Manager over the next few weeks
or months. He said there would be some additional expenses in the new facility, but they are
not creating a new concept of a public facility. He cited that there are cities, counties and
universities all over the country that put up assembly facilities every day. The reason they do
this is because they work, they make sense, and they create economic development
opportunities. He said it’s common to have subsidized facilities. Many public facilities would
struggle operationally with event revenue only. He noted that in 2003 the Swiftel center
budgeted for $500,000 in revenue and in 2007 they grew the revenue to $1.3 million. With
the increase in revenue, the annual subsidy from the City’s general fund has not grown
substantially. Richter said that’s a testament to how that building has done for the community.
The estimated economic development impact to the Brookings community over those five
years is $40 million. These community public facilities are being built because of the economic
development and spin-off of business that happens when people come into the community for
business or concerts. He cited an example of a 200-500 person convention. If the Swiftel
Center Convention Facility has an attached hotel with 100 rooms, then another 100-400 rooms
will be needed throughout the community. That’s economic development for other private
businesses. Those 200 to 500 people won’t eat every meal at the Convention Center; they’ll
eat at Brookings restaurants. That’s another economic development impact. The attendees
will probably shop in town and fill up with gas before leaving. That’s why communities are
building these public convention centers every day. He cites local examples of the Sioux Falls
Arena and attached Sheraton hotel; Watertown Convention Center with hotel; and Grand
Forks stadium, convention center, and attached hotel. It works in those places and that’s why
they built those types of facilities.
Bailey said they have been planning since December 2006 of starting a hotel attached to their
banquet facility. They’ve reviewed the list of events at the Swiftel Center and said there would
have been only two, which were sporting events that they couldn’t have housed at their facility.
Bailey asked about the parking plans. He said in 2007 the Swiftel Center said they lost two
events for the community because there wasn’t enough convention space. He said he didn’t
see why taxpayers should build a $7 million addition when they already have a facility capable of
keeping and attracting events. He questioned the seating capacity and occupancy in the
proposed ballroom, noting it called for seating 1,000 people in round tables in a 12,000 sq. ft.
ballroom. He said that would only allow for seats at 2 ½ feet apart. He said code requires 15
sq ft/person which would require a 15,000 sq. ft. ballroom. At his calculations, the plan was
already $450,000 over budget. He felt another large mistake in the plan is the 1,450 sq. ft.
18
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
kitchen with the walk-in cooler taking up 450 feet. The Shamrock’s kitchen is 2,251 sq.ft. He
said the Center would need another 1,200 sq.ft. of kitchen space. He felt the FF&E was quite
low. He asked if they had enough chairs and tables. He estimated needing to triple the cost for
furnishings which could add another $350,000. He felt the 20% soft cost estimates were too
low. He asked if there were enough parking spaces to handle everything that is proposed.
Munsterman asked Bailey if he had read the study. Bailey said yes.
Munsterman said the Center is hoping to attract larger type events. He asked Bailey if he didn’t
feel there was that type of business out there. Bailey said in his initial research, besides
different large conventions around the state, he interviewed churches and many organizations.
Just in weddings alone, there are 220 per year around the Brookings area. He looked at
Saturday events only. In researching other organizations, he found another 100 Saturday dates
putting the total demand at 320 Saturday events per year. Taking into account other locations
in the area, that leaves only 208 available Saturday dates before construction. After
construction, they’re at 364 Saturday dates. He feels that his facility and others have filled the
demand for other Saturday events. His facility can also handle conventions and has more space
available for expansion, citing another 20,000 sq.ft. of space not built-out yet. He doesn’t see
spending money for attracting two big events per year. Many of those conventions and
organizations have ties to different cities in the state and the event won’t stay in one location
every year. He doesn’t believe there’s a larger event business to attract.
Richter said the Swiftel Center doesn’t currently bid conventions because the Center doesn’t
have the break-out meeting space to accommodate their needs. He feels that the Swiftel
Center once it’s expanded into a Convention Facility, would be very attractive to convention
and corporate business with the community’s close ties to SDSU. They will focus on Sunday-
Thursday events. Right now, most of the events currently hosted at the Swiftel Center are 1
to 2 days in duration. A convention center attracts the longer events, but right now the Swiftel
Center isn’t the right type of facility to bring those events into Brookings. The reason for this
expansion plan is to attract new business into the community. In response to Mr. Bailey’s
comments about the expansion plans, Richter said the ballroom plan is purely conceptual at this
point. Once the City decides to move forward with a contract, a firm plan would be
developed. Right now, this provides everyone with a visual image of the concept. He noted
that the seating is dependant on room staging and is different for every event (concerts,
speakers, trade shows, car shows, multiple event). The room could accommodate 1,700 in
theater seating configuration. Regarding the kitchen size and design, Richter noted that this
was an area that was cut and reduced from the original building design. The Center can
produce a meal for 2,000 out of the 1,000 sq. ft. kitchen. He agreed that it’s tight and very
efficient with needs to expand. His staff and catering agency has made it work. As for code
requirements, he’s not aware of any issues or problems. He feels the soft costs, FF&E and
parking lot numbers are appropriate, noting this is an already existing facility with an operating
budget, equipment and staff.
Thomson asked if there was any reason that a convention center and hotel couldn’t be privately
owned. Richter said yes, it could be privately owned if someone wanted to create one.
19
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Reed asked about the brick and mortar costs and if these were conceptual costs. What is the
bottom line number to spend to build the facility? Richter listed the items and estimated costs.
The east addition is $4.2 million. The FF&E and soft costs of 10% puts the number at $5.6
million with contingency fees built in. The west addition with storage needs and the green
rooms are $724,000 and the parking lot to the east of the new center is $400,000.
Reed asked if the $5.6 million was conceptual or bottom line. Richter clarified that yes, it was a
“conceptual” number because they have not contracted with an architect and engineering firm
for final plans. That’s a late 2007 number provided by the architect. Five years from now that
number will change.
Al Kurtenbach, Daktronics, Inc., thanked the Bailey family for the new Shamrock facility. He
said he also supports this proposed addition for the Swiftel Center very strongly because this is
the kind of thing we need in our community if we want to grow up and become a full fledged
community to grow around the university and support companies like Daktronics. Right now
Daktronics has to look outside of Brookings to meet its needs and he doesn’t like it. He would
like for Brookings to be forward looking and to build its facilities and capabilities to grow up to
be the type of community consistent with the university. We’re not there yet. Building a
convention center would be a huge magnet. Daktronics works many conventions per week
and it’s true, those conventions are 3 to 4 days. His staff often stays at the convention center
hotel site if possible, but many times its full or too expensive and they stay somewhere else in
that community. A Convention Center is a very important and needed facility for Brookings.
Daktronics is one of the stronger users of the Swiftel Center and intends to grow. He hopes
the City Council would look favorably on this investment.
There was council consensus to place this item on a future work session for further discussion.
Draft policy for the government access channel and televised meetings.
The Council briefly reviewed the draft Government Access Channel policy, which was modeled
after the City of Sioux Falls’ CityLink Channel 16 policy. The policy addresses the management
of the site and appropriate programming content.
It was noted that commencing at this meeting, the City Council meetings would be broadcast
live on Channel 9 and replayed during the week.
Mediacom is required to provide a public access channel to the City of Brookings under their
Cable Franchise Agreement and commencing March 10th, Channel 9 was now solely under the
management of the City. The purpose of the channel is to provide the public with information
regarding governmental issues and events, making government more open and accessible.
The primary use of this channel is to cablecast live city meetings and replay previously recorded
city meetings, along with any other video production. Future formatting may include other
government related meetings beyond the City Council, Town Hall meetings, Candidate Forums,
and Video production pieces on city issues and activities. Also included will be a bulletin board
system which is to be a web based user interface with the ability to pre-program through a
series of templates for information to include text, images, and graphics backgrounds. Other
20
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
examples of programming are the City calendar, photos, maps, zoned screen with message bar
for updates, current weather lines, news releases, top AP stories, promotional pieces,
information on various upcoming city issues, website links, and historical information.
Whaley asked how many Brookings’ citizens have access to Mediacom and this channel.
Thomson noted that anyone could access the meeting through a live stream webcast. Shari
Thornes, City Clerk, said that live web streaming was evaluated when the multi-media system
was designed, but decided against it due to the broadband width needed to run the system.
Part of the concern is handling the bandwidth. If 20 people logged on at same time, it would
choke the system and there’s no way to know how many people would log on for live stream.
Another option Thornes looked at would be to use a hosted service for a while. The host
would provide all bandwidth needed and link to the stream. Fifty users could log in and there’d
be no crashes. If the Council wanted to pursue that route, she recommended the usage be
monitored for 3-4 months to determine how many use the system. Hosting costs can range
from $250/500 per month depending on how many log on, the amount of data processed and
handled, and the amount of bandwidth used. She noted that it was decided against this due to
the cost at this time, but could be added later.
Thornes said there are plans to digitally archive the city council meetings on the website, but
not the ability to be viewed live.
Thornes asked for Council direction on the length of time to retain the meeting images. Staff
recommends a 3-6 month range due to storage issues. She noted that there is no statutory
requirement to retain the meeting on video or digitally.
There was council discussion regarding how often and exact times rebroadcast the council
meeting on the access channel. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Brunner, to
rebroadcast at 12, 3, 6 and 9 every day and retain the meetings for three months. An
amendment was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to broadcast Wednesday at 1:00 p.m.,
Thursdays at 7:00 p.m., and Fridays at 9:00 p.m. On the amendment, all present voted yes;
motion carried. On the main motion as amended, all present voted yes; motion carried.
The Council will seek input from citizens on these times and see if these are appropriate or if
other days and times would be better and will revisit this issue if needed.
Thornes also requested Council discussion at a later date regarding the Channel content and
management and possible partnering opportunities with other governmental entities and also
final action on the overall policy is still needed.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to approve the consent
agenda which included:
A. Agenda
B. Action to approve City Council Minutes from the January 22, January 29, February 12
and February 26, 2008 Meetings.
21
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
C. Action on Resolution No. 22-08 – establishing Charges for Collections and Disposal of
Refuse in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
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 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.
22
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
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:
(a) For Tires
Passenger car tires $ 2.50
Light pickup tires $ 3.75
Truck tires $ 8.75
Tractor tires $ 25.00
(b) For Asbestos
Per bag $ 5.00
Per ton $ 40.00
(c) For petroleum contaminated soil
Waste oil (per ton) $ 11.50
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.
D. Action on Resolution No. 25-08, awarding bids for a street sweeper (bids were opened
on March 4th).
Resolution No. 25-08
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.
E. Action on Resolution No. 19-08, authorizing the city participation in a Title V Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Grant.
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
23
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
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.
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.
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.
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.
Resolution No. 24-08
Resolution to Change the Functional Classification of Certain Streets
in the City of Brookings
WHEREAS, There are identified specific Functional Classifications of roads and streets within
the City of Brookings as prescribed by the rules of the Federal Highway Administration, and
WHEREAS, 7th Avenue between 3rd Street and 11th Street, and 11th Street between 7th
Avenue and Medary Avenue are currently classified as URBAN COLLECTOR streets, and
WHEREAS, 7th Avenue between 3rd Street and 11th Street, and 11th Street between 7th
Avenue and Medary Avenue currently serve local traffic and are signed to prohibit truck
traffic, and
24
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
WHEREAS, 34th Avenue from Highway 14 to the South City Limits at 8th Street South is
currently not part of Brookings’s Federal Classification, and
WHEREAS, 34th Avenue from Highway 14 to the South City Limits serves a large volume of
the traffic from the L. G. Everest, Inc. quarry and numerous industry employees east of
Interstate 29, and
WHEREAS, 34th Avenue is one of Brookings’s access points of the access controlled SD
Highway 14,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS that 7th Avenue between 3rd Street and 11th Street, and 11th Street between 7th
Avenue and Medary Avenue be removed from the Federal Aid System in the City of
Brookings, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 34th Avenue, from Highway 14 to South City Limits near
8th Street South be added to the Federal Aid System in the City of Brookings as URBAN
COLLECTOR.
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.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 11-08 – Budget. First reading was held 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.
Public Hearing: March 25th.
Ordinance No. 06-08 – Rezoning. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 06-08 - An
Ordinance 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). No comments were made. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Brunner, to
approve. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Ordinance No. 07-08 – Conditional Use. A public hearing 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). No comments were made. A motion was made by Whaley,
seconded by Thomson, to approve. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Ordinance No. 09-08 – Rezoning. A public hearing 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. No comments were made. A motion
was made by Thomson, seconded by Bartley, to approve. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Ordinance No. 10-08 – Drainage. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 10-08, an
Ordinance Amending Article II, Building Code, of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the
25
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
City of Brookings Pertaining to Drainage Plans. No comments were made. A motion was
made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to approve. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Presentation of Annual Financial Report to Council. As per SDCL 9-22-21, Rita
Thompson, Finance Manager, presented to the Council, the receipts, expenses and financial
condition of the municipality, including where the City’s funds are deposited. She noted that
the report was unaudited and she anticipates that adjustments will be made. The final audited
report will be presented to the Council at a later date. She also commented that this is a new
format required by statute that shows all revenues, expenditures, and fund balances by
increasing or decreasing designations. Reed asked if the Council could receive a report that
shows budget to actual. Thompson said yes.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Thomson, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present
voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
26
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
27
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on Resolution No. 26-08, appointment of Election
Judges for April 8, 2008 municipal/school election.
Resolution No. 26-08
Appointment of Election Judges
WHEREAS, a City of Brookings Municipal Election will be held on April 8, 2008 for the positions of three Council members and
one School Board member; and
WHEREAS, as required by SDCL 9-13-16.1, the City Council must appoint Election Superintendents and Deputies and set their
rate of compensation; and
WHEREAS, the following superintendents and deputies are hereby appointed at a rate of $8.50 per hour for superintendents,
$8.00 per hour for deputies, and a flat fee of $15.00 for the April 7, 2008 Election School:
RESOLUTION BOARD
David Peterson 692-7757
2026 Kansas Drive, Brookings
Larry Hult 692-4813
2005 Iowa Street, Brookings
ALTERNATE: Karen Cook, 693-3367
824 W 16th Ave, Brookings
PRECINCT 1 - Tompkin’s Alumni Center
Harold Widvey, Superintendent 692-9599
681 Faculty Drive, Brookings
LaRayne Wahlstrom 692-2550
1817 8th Street, Brookings
Richard Wahlstrom 692-2550
1817 8th Street, Brookings
ALTERNATE: Madeline Francis 692-6912
2000 22nd Ave, Brookings
PRECINCT 2 - 1st Lutheran Church
Neva Jean Corlett, Superintendent 692-5707
812 7th Avenue, Brookings
Norma Linn 692-1235
624 Hughes Ave, Brookings
Leslie Tlustos 692-2462
1016 7th Ave., Brookings
ALTERNATE: Marcella Hadley 692-7409
816 7th Ave., Brookings
ALTERNATE 2: Lillian Pengra 692-8441
1047 3rd Ave., Brookings
PRECINCT 3 - City Hall
Verle Barg, Superintendent 692-6817
116 5th Street, Brookings
Barb Woolworth 692-6554
517 9th Avenue, Brookings
Linda Santema 692-2005
903 4th Street, Brookings
ALTERNATE: Russell Lokken 697-7280
108 5th Street, Brookings
PRECINCT 4 - Ascension Lutheran Church
Sue Knutzen, Superintendent 692-7203
239 20th Avenue, Brookings
Marilyn Foerster 692-9876
505 20th Avenue, Brookings
Sharon Anderegg 692-4925
416 17th Avenue, Brookings
ALTERNATE: Karen VanderWal 692-7885
1811 Elmwood Dr., Brookings
PRECINCT 5 – Bethel Baptist Church
Carleen Dixon, Superintendent 692-1378
1169 Squire Court, Brookings
Marlys Berkland 692-5094
1216 Laurel Lane, Brookings
Sue Karolczak 692-9340
930 17th Avenue So., Brookings
ALTERNATE: Hazel Hauff 692-4044
707 Elm Ave, Brookings
PRECINCT 6 – United Church of Christ
Charlene Forsythe, Superintendent 692-2215
1306 Trail Ridge Circle, Brookings
Robert Kortlever 692-2661
123 Teton Lane, Brookings
Delores Canaday 692-2037
212 Half Moon Road, Brookings
ALTERNATE: Mary Peterson 692-3191
207 Half Moon Road, Brookings
Passed and approved this 25th day of March, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action on an Abatement request from Gulbranson
Development Company, Inc. to abate a portion of the
2007 taxes in the amount of $588.00 for NE¼, NE¼
excluding exceptions but including S80’ N1430’ W238’ 34-
110-50 (Timberline). Assessor recommends approval.
Gulbranson Development has submitted a request to abate a portion of the 2007
property taxes on the above referenced property in the amount of $588.00. The
Director of Equalization has advised that her office used an incorrect number of acres
for the land calculations. The value used was $60,900 and it should have been $34,200;
for a difference of $26,700. The tax amount on the different of $26,700 is $588.00.
The County Director of Equalization recommends approval.
28
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Resolution No. 27-08, STP – Urban System Priority List.
The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) allocates funding for urban systems
projects and they require the City to submit a resolution outlining the projects for the next 5-
years based on our best estimate of future needs. The City Council authorized the addition of
34th Avenue from Highway 14 to Prince Drive to the Federal Aid System at their March 11,
2008 meeting. This action will make 34th Avenue eligible for Urban System funds.
The previous Urban System Priority List had 34th Avenue as new construction from 6th Street to
Prince Drive in 2009. The South Dakota Department of Transportation has changed the
process and funding for the urban projects. The new process must follow the federal guidelines,
and takes much longer to accomplish a project. Due to this change, the 34th Avenue project has
been deferred to 2010. This road will need to be constructed as a haul road, and the
engineering design will need to begin soon to make the project eligible for bidding for 2010.
The previous Urban System Priority List also listed Medary Avenue from 6th Street to 15th
Street South project for a milling and asphalt overlay for 2011. This project has been moved to
2012 to build up the required fund balance for this project. The Urban System Priority List is
for the 5-year time frame, which would include 2013. However, there would not be enough
fund balance in 2013 for a project, so there is no project projected for that year.
There will be a separate resolution forthcoming that will authorize construction for the 2010
project. This resolution will approve the 5-year Urban System Priority List.
29
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Resolution No. 27-08
STP-Urban System Priority List
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has designated certain streets to be included in the
STP-Urban System of Streets as defined by the SDDOT; and
WHEREAS, the SDDOT has designated certain funds, Federal and State to be used for
construction, reconstruction and major repair of the STP-Urban System Streets; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has been requested to establish a priority list of
projects to be considered for funding by the SDDOT;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Brookings hereby resolves that the following
projects be considered in the order listed:
Priority Bid
No. Project Location Year Type of Work Length (mi.)
Cost
1. 34th Ave from
US 14 to Prince Drive 2010 Grading, Curb & Gutter,
0.7 $1,250,000
2. Medary Ave. S. from
20th St. S. to 32nd St. S. 2012 Milling & Asphalt Overlay 1.6
$1,000,000
& Pavement Markings
Passed and approved this 25th day of March 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
__
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
30
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action to extend the Temporary Fixed Based Operating
Agreement for an additional 60 days and approve $715
per month for an additional two months.
City staff has been working with Randy Hanson, owner of Pheasant Fury Aviation, LLC
regarding the Fixed Based Operating Agreement. The FBO agreement is now in draft
form, and the details are being discussed between the City and the FBO. The Airport
Board discussed the draft agreement at their March 17th meeting. However, the Airport
Board wanted to approve the final agreement before it was presented to the City
Council. Randy Hanson has requested that the Council extend the temporary FBO
agreement for an additional 60 days and he has requested approval of the $715 subsidy
per month for an additional two months. This motion will authorize City Manager to
extend FBO agreement and subsidy of $715 for 60 days.
31
March 25, 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.
32
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
7. Ordinance No. 12-08 - An Ordinance Revising the
Composition, Appointment and Criteria for
Appointment of Members of the Brookings Health
System Board of Trustees.
Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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.
On January 22, 2008, Deputy Mayor Tim 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.
The City Council unanimously approved the following action for the city attorney to draft an
ordinance for Council review and action (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. )
Enclosed is a draft ordinance for first reading. Second reading is scheduled for April 15th. The
draft ordinance has been provided to the Brookings County Commission and to the Health
Systems Board.
33
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
ORDINANCE NO. 12-08
An Ordinance Revising The Composition, Appointment And Criteria For Appointment
Of Members Of The Brookings Health System Board Of Trustees.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Sec. 42-92. Composition, appointment, criteria for appointment, and name.
(a) The board of trustees shall consist of eight (8) members. In addition, physician-
representatives shall be appointed as described below.
(b) The board of trustees shall be known as the “Brookings Health System Board of
Trustees”. The Brookings Health System consists of the Brookings Hospital,
Home Health/Hospice Agency, Brookhaven Estates and Brookview Manor.
(c) The board may grow to more than nine (9) members. Five (5) members shall be
appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council and may
reside within or outside the city limits, provided they reside within and are
electors of the County of Brookings and shall be residents and electors of the city.
Three (3) members shall be residents and electors of the county and may reside
within or outside the limits of the City of Brookings, residing outside the
corporate limits of the city and shall be appointed by the county commission.
(d) In addition, a practicing physician representative from each clinic whose physicians are
members of the active medical staff of the Brookings Hospital and who have been
members of the active medical staff of the Brookings Hospital for at least one (1)
year are eligible for appointment by the mayor, with the advice and consent of the
City Council, to serve on the Brookings Health System Board of Trustees. Such
physician representatives shall have all of the voting privileges as other members of
the board of trustees, and may reside within or outside the city limits, provided
they reside within the County of Brookings.
(e) Individuals recommended to the city council or the county commission to serve as
members of the board of trustees shall evidence an interest in fostering and
maintaining a system of quality health care through support of the purpose of the
Brookings Health System as stated in section 42-72. The physician members may
be asked at times to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest with their
particular practice and contractual or other issues under discussion. The term of
appointment shall be for three (3) years. Advice from physician representatives is
particularly needed to provide information from his or her medical background
that would be beneficial to the needs of the hospital, and, in addition, to represent
the members of the active medical staff of the Brookings Hospital.
34
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
(f) Appointment shall be made without reference to race, gender, sexual orientation, age,
handicap, religion, country of origin, or political affiliation.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: March 25, 2008
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
35
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
8. Ordinance No. 13-08 – An Ordinance Amending Article
II of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Brookings and Pertaining to the Adoption of the 2006
International Building Code and the 2006 International
Residential Code with Certain Amendments Thereto.
Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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.
The City of Brookings is currently enforcing the 2003 International Building Code, the
2003 International Residential Code, the 2003 International Mechanical Code and the
2003 International Existing Building Code. The State of South Dakota has recently
adopted the 2006 International Building Code and the 2006 International Residential
Code, and Brookings City staff has been reviewing the 2006 versions of these codes and
amendments.
The Board of Appeals met to discuss the adoption of the new 2006 codes, and also
discussed the amendments that should be made. The Board of Appeals made the
following recommendation at their March 11, 2008 meeting:
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
March 11, 2008
A Building Code Board of Appeals meeting was called to order by Spencer Hawley on
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM in the City Hall Meeting Room. Members present were
Dick Anderson, Gerald Foster, Ray Froehlich, Dan Rettedal and Hawley. Others present were
Building Services Administrator Greg Miller, Engineering Tech Brandon Long, Deputy Fire Chief
Pete Bolzer, and City Engineer Jackie Lanning.
(Anderson/Froehlich) Motion to approve the amendments to the 2006 Edition of the
International Building Code. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
(Foster/Anderson) Motion to support the amendments from the 2003 International Building
Code along with the present amendments and include all in one ordinance. All present voted
aye. MOTION CARRIED.
The amendments are summarized as follows:
• Amend to allow for board of appeals
• Amend to require building permits for sidewalks and driveways
• Amend for expiration dates of permits
36
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
• Amend to authorize for investigation fee
• Amend for wind loads
• Amend for snow loads
• Amend for egress requirements
• Amend for smoke alarm requirements
• Amend sprinkler requirements for apartments with 16 units and above
These amendments are the same amendments that are currently in effect with the
current building codes, and the Board of Appeals recommended that these same
amendments be made to the 2006 IBC and 2006 IRC. This ordinance will adopt the
2006 International Building Code, the 2006 International Residential Code, the 2006
International Mechanical Code, and the 2006 International Existing Building Code, which
may be used in Lieu of Chapter 34 of the 2006 International Building Code and the
stated amendments thereto.
37
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
ORDINANCE NO. 13-08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS AND PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION
OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL
RESIDENTIAL CODE, THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, AND THE 2006
INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS
THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Brookings that Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings be amended to read as follows:
I.
Article II. Building Code
Sec. 22-31. Adoption.
There is adopted by the city those certain codes known as the 2006 Edition of the International
Building Code, the 2006 International Residential Code, the 2006 International Mechanical
Code, and the 2006 International Existing Building Code, which may be used as an alternate to
Chapter 34 of the 2006 International Building code, as recommended by the International Code
Council, collectively referred to as the “International Building Code”, “building code” or
“code”. A copy of the building code is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is available for
inspection.
Sec. 22-32. Conflicts.
In the event of any other conflict between the provisions of the International Building Code
adopted by this article and other provisions of city ordinance, state law or rules or regulations
of the city, the provisions of city ordinance, state law or the rules or regulations of the city shall
prevail and be controlling.
Sec. 22-33. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in the building code adopted in section
22-31, shall be defined, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning, as
follows:
Municipality means the City of Brookings.
Sec. 22-34. Establishment of office of building official.
The office of building official is created, and the city manager shall designate the executive
official in charge, who shall be known as the building official and whose duties shall be as
outlined in the International Building Code adopted in section 22-31.
Sec. 22-35. Fees; permits.
(a) No permit required by the building code shall be issued until the fee prescribed by
resolution shall have been paid. No amendment to a permit shall be approved until the
38
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
additional fee, if any, resulting from an increase in the estimated cost of the building or
structure, shall have been paid.
(b) For the demolition or removal of a building that is furnished with water and/or sewer, a
permit may be granted; provided, however, that in such case, a deposit guaranteeing the
abandonment of the water services and guaranteeing the abandonment of the sewer
services shall be deposited at the time of application for such permit, the deposit to be in
an amount to be determined by policy of the utility board. Such deposit, but not the fees,
will be refunded upon completion of the work or the city will arrange for such work at
actual cost, plus ten percent to be paid from such deposit. The demolition or removal
shall be completed within 30 days after the issuance of the permit. If water and sewer
services are to be reused or new services required for a new structure in the immediate
future at the same location, deposits may be waived by the building official.
Sec. 22-36. Amendments.
The following amendments to the building code are adopted and incorporated into the
building code:
Section R105.2. Work exempt from permit, is amended by deleting the following subsection:
5. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches (762 mm) above adjacent grade
and not over any basement or story below.
Section 105.5 and R105.5 Expiration, is amended by replacing Section 105.5 and R105.5
Expiration as set forth in the International Building Code with the following:
105.5 and R105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued by the building official under the
provisions of this code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building
or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of
such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or
abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days. Before
such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the
fee therefore shall be one-half of the amount required for a new permit for such work
provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and
specifications for such and provided further that such suspension or abandonment has
not exceeded one year. In order to renew action on a permit after expiration, the
permitee shall pay a new full permit fee.
Any permittee holding an unexpired permit may apply for an extension of the time
within which work may commence under that permit when the permittee is unable to
commence work within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory
reasons. The building official may extend the time required by this section for good and
satisfactory reasons. The building official may extend the time for action by the
permittee for a period not exceeding 180 days on written request by the permittee
showing that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action
from being taken. No permit shall be extended more than once.
39
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire
and become null and void if the building or work is not completed within two years for
all occupancies from the date issued.
Section 108.2 and R108.2, Schedule of permit fees, under 108.5 and R108, Fees, is amended to
read as follows:
108.2 and R108.2 Investigation Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee
shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The
investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code.
The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in section
R108. The payment of such fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all
other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
Section 112 and R112, board of appeals, is amended to include the following:
112.1 and R112.1. General. In order to hear and decide appeals or orders, decisions or
determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation
of this code, and to determine the suitability of alternate materials and methods of
construction, there shall be and is created a board of appeals consisting of members
who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building
construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The building official shall
be an ex-officio member of and shall act as secretary to such board, but shall have no
vote on any matter before the board. The board of appeals shall consist of five
members. Each member shall be appointed for a term of five years. The successors
shall be appointed upon the expiration of the respective terms to serve five years. A
vacancy shall be filled by the mayor with the concurrence of the city council for the
unexpired term of any member who resigns, dies or is removed. The board of appeals
shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson from its members. They shall adopt rules
of procedure for conducting the business of the board of appeals, and shall render all
decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the building
official.
112.2 and R112.2. Limitations of authority. The board of appeals shall have no
authority relative to the interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code, nor
shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of this code that pertain to or
affect life safety.
Section R301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria
1. Ground Roof Snow Load.........................................................40 psf contour
Roof slopes with a rise of three inches (76.2 mm) or less to 12 inches (305 mm) shall be
designed for a full or unbalanced snow load of not less than 30 pounds per square foot
(1.44kN/square meter) of horizontal projection. Where a roof system is designed to slope
less than one-quarter inch (6.35 mm) per 12 inches (305 mm), a surcharge load of not less
40
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
five pounds per square foot (0.24kN/square meter) in addition to the required live load due
to snow shall be designed for.
Roof slopes with over three inches (76.2 mm) of rise per 12 inches (305 mm) shall be
designed for a full or unbalanced snow load of not less than 25 pounds per square foot
(1.2kN/square meter) of horizontal projection.
Potential unbalanced accumulation of snow at valleys, parapets, roof structures, and offsets
in roofs of uneven configuration shall be considered.
2. Wind Speed 90 mph
3. Seismic Design Category A
4. Weathering Severe
5. Frost Line Depth 42 inches (1,067
mm)
6. Termite Damage Slight to
Moderate
7. Winter Design Temperature-11 Degrees Fahrenheit
8. Ice Barrier Underlayment Requirement yes
9. Air Freezing Index 2,500
10. Mean Annual Temperature 46 degrees
Fahrenheit
Section 1608.1, General, under Section 1608, Snow Loads, is amended to read as follows:
Section 1608.1 General. The building official has determined the minimum roof live load
to be 40 pounds per square foot uniform load ground snow load.
Section R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required, under Section R310, Emergency Escape
and Rescue Openings is amended to include the following additional subsection:
Section R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements and every sleeping room
shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opining. Such opening
shall open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or court. Where basements
contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency egress and rescue openings shall be
required in each sleeping room, but shall not be required in adjoining areas of the
basement. Where emergency escape and rescue openings are provided, they shall have
a sill height of not more than 44 48 inches (1118 mm) above the floor….
Section R310.1.5 Basement Minimum Sill Height. R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All
emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7
4.6 square feet (0.530m2).
R310.2.1 Ladder and steps. Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 48 inches
(1118mm) shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the
window in the fully open position….
41
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Delete Section 310.5
310.5 Emergency escape windows under decks and porches. Emergency escape windows are
allowed to be installed under decks and porches provided the location of the deck
allows the emergency escape window to be fully opened and provides a path not less
than 36 inches (914 mm) in height to a yard or court.
Section R313.1 Smoke alarms under Section R313 Smoke Alarms is amended to include the
following additional subsections:
Section R313.1 Smoke alarms.
4. A smoke detector installed in a stairwell shall be so located as to ensure that smoke
rising in the stairwell cannot be prevented from reaching the detector by an intervening
door or obstruction.
5. A smoke detector installed to detect a fire in the basement shall be located in close
proximity to the stairway leading to the floor above.
6. The smoke detector installed on a story without a separate sleeping area shall be
located in close proximity to the stairway leading to the floor above.
7. Smoke detectors shall be mounted on the ceiling at least four inches (102 mm) from
a wall or on a wall with the top of the detector not less than four inches (102 mm) nor
more than 12 inches (305 mm) below the ceiling.
Section 903.2.7 Group R, under Section 903, Automatic Sprinkler Systems, is amended to read
as follows:
Section 903.2.7 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section
903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R –1 fire area and a Group R-4
fire area with more than eight occupants. An automatic fire extinguisher system shall be
provided throughout all buildings with a Group R-2 fire area of more than two stories in height,
including basements, or having 16 or more dwelling units.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: March 25, 2008
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
_______________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
42
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
9. Ordinance No. 14-08 – An Ordinance Amending the Joint
Jurisdiction Area Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a
private stable as a special exception in the Residence R-
1A District.
Public Hearing: April 15th
** 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.
Proposal: Allow a private stable to be established by special exception in the Residence
R-1A District in the Joint Jurisdictional Area
Background: Stables are currently allowed as a special exception in the Ag District in the
Joint Jurisdiction Area. Private stables are currently allowed as a conditional use in the
Ag, R-1, and R-1A Districts within the City of Brookings.
The city created two (2) categories of stables in 1994, a private stable and a
riding stable. The distinction was created because both uses existed, and there was a
need to control a riding stable to a grater degree due to its potential impact on adjacent
uses.
Specifics: The definitions for both a private and riding stable are recommended so the
distinction is in the ordinance. This will clarify the difference between the two.
The special exception is proposed with standards regulating the minimum lot
area and maximum number of horses. The standards also dictate the location of any
pasture and the distance a horse would have to stay from an adjacent residence. Lastly,
certain types of fencing are prohibited. These regulations are similar to those in the city.
Recommendation: The City and County Planning Commissions voted unanimously to
recommend approval of this zoning amendment.
43
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 14-08
An ordinance revising the Zoning Ordinance of the Joint Jurisdiction Area surrounding
the City of Brookings pertaining to Private Stables in the Residence R-1A District
Be it ordained by the City of Brookings, South Dakota that Article II, Section 200 and
Article IV, Section 412 of Ordinance 14-80 be amended to read as follows, to wit:
Article II. Definitions
Section 200.385
Stable, Private: Any lot or building or part thereon where horses or other equine animals are
maintained, trained or cared for by the landowner for the sole purpose of pleasure.
Section 200.386
Stable, Riding: Any lot or building or part thereon where horses or any equine animals are
maintained, boarded, trained or cared for in return for remuneration.
Article IV. Agricultural, Residential, Floodplain and Aquifer Districts.
Section 410. Residence R-1A single family.
Section 412. Uses allowed as special exceptions by the Board of Adjustment.
.9 Private Stables shall be established on lots with a minimum area of one and one-half acres.
Three-quarters of one acre of land shall be provided for each horse located thereon. No
pasture shall be located within the required front yard setback and no horse shall be allowed to
be kept or corralled within 100 feet of any building used for human habitation other than by the
owner of such animal. No fencing shall be made of barbwire or connected to an electrical
current.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: March 25, 2008
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
___________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
44
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
NOTICE OF HEARING
UPON A CHANGE IN ZONE REGULATIONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the Joint
Jurisdiction Area Surrounding the City of Brookings have been submitted pertaining to a private
stable as a special exception in the Residence R-1A District.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that said changes will be acted on by the City and County
Planning Commissions at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, at the Brookings County
Resource Center at 826 32nd Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota. Any action taken by the City
and County Planning Commissions is a recommendation to the City Council and County
Commission.
Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2008.
_________________________________
Secretary, City Planning Commission
45
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Joint City/County
Planning Commissions
March 4, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
A joint meeting of the County Planning Commission and the City Planning Commission
was called to order by City Chairperson Greg Fargen on March 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the
Resource Center at 826 32nd Avenue. County Planning Commission members present were
Chair Duane Knutson, Randy Jensen, Darrell Kleinjan, Darrell Nelson, Robert Rochel, Mary
Kidwiler, and Jeff Robbins. Emil Klavetter was absent. City Planning Commission members
present were Curt Ness, David Kurtz, Stacy Howlett, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, and Fargen. John
Gustafson, Mike Cameron and Larry Fjeldos were absent. Others present were Brookings
County Zoning Officer Bob Hill, City Engineer Jackie Lanning, City Planner Dan Hanson, and
others.
Item #2 – The City of Brookings has submitted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the
Joint Jurisdiction Area Surrounding the City of Brookings pertaining to a private stable as a
special exception in the Residence R-1A District
(Kurtz/Heuton) Motion to approve the amendments. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
(Kidwiler/Kleinjan) Motion to approve the amendments. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #2 – Hanson stated that the amendment would be similar to the same use that is
currently allowed in the city as a conditional use. He noted that four (4) larger areas in the Joint
Jurisdiction Area were zoned R-1A, Nelson Addition, Southern Estates Addition, and two (2)
unplatted acreages.
The use had several standards that would have to be met prior to approval. These
included a minimum lot area, area minimums for each horse, pasture location, separation
requirements from adjacent houses, and prohibiting certain types of fencing.
Heuton asked how the use would be treated if a landowner did not charge a fee for
maintaining someone else’s horse. Hanson replied that the horses per acre density would still
be enforced as if it were the landowner’s animal. Bob Hill, County Zoning Officer, remarked
that a horse or colt would be considered as one animal unit.
Gregg asked how this amendment would impact existing stables. Hanson responded that
those uses would be allowed to continue as they had in the past.
46
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Section 410. Residence R-IA single family.
a. Permitted uses.
.1 Single-family dwelling.
.2 Churches and similar places of worship, which may include day-care facilities with such
use, confined to within the church worship and educational facilities. (Ord. No. 7-89,
10-10-89).
.3 Public, parochial schools of general instruction.
.4 Public libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds and similar community facilities.
.5 Governmental administration and services such as office, firehouse, police, first aid, civil
defense and like uses; however, this section shall not be interpreted to permit such uses
as warehousing, indoor and outdoor storage of vehicles, road-building equipment and
supplies.
.6 Accessory uses incidental to any of the foregoing permitted uses, such as private garages,
parking lots, etc.
412. Uses allowed as special exceptions by the Board of Adjustment.
.1 Agriculture as a living, provided that there is no display of products other than in growth
visible from the public right-of-way.
.2 Public utility substations or pumping stations, upon a showing that such structure is
essential to serve the immediate neighborhood, that it cannot be located in any other
type of district and that it is housed in buildings that harmonize with the character of
the neighborhood and has adequate screening and landscaping and meets all other
standards of this ordinance.
.3 Home occupation. (Ord. No. 17-89, 10-10-89)
.4 Swimming pool not operated for profit, meeting recognized construction and safety
standards and all other requirements of this ordinance.
.5 Nonmunicipal libraries, museums, art galleries and community centers, whether or not
operated for profit; non-commercial clubs and lodges.
.6 Hospitals provided that the health officer of the City shall first certify that in the
proposed location, such use will not have a detrimental effect on the health of the
surrounding neighborhood and further provided that a nurse's home as an accessory use
is permitted only on the same lot as the hospital.
47
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
.7 Removable roadside stands for the sale of farm products produced on the premises,
provided however, that any such stand shall be situated not less than forty (40) feet
from the street right-of-way line or lot line and shall have adequate parking spaces, and
in no event, less than four (4) parking spaces. Such stands shall be removed during
seasons when products are not being offered for sale.
.8 Accessory uses incidental to any of the foregoing special exceptions.
413. Area regulations.
.1 Lot area and width. A lot area of not less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet per
family shall be provided for every building hereafter erected or used in whole or in part as a
dwelling. Each lot shall have a building frontage of not less than one hundred (100) feet.
.2 Front yard. There shall be a front yard on each street on which the lot abuts, which yard
shall be not less than forty (40) feet in depth.
.3. Side yard. There shall be two (2) side yards on each lot neither of which shall be less than
fifteen (15) feet in depth.
.4 Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard on each lot, which yard shall not be less than thirty
(30) feet.
Supplementary regulations. See regulations prescribed in Article VII, Sections 700, 720, 730 and
740.
48
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings **
10. 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.”
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.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
49
March 25, 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:
50
March 25, 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
51
March 25, 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% Public 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% Public 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
52
March 25, 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
53
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Other Business
11. Discussion and possible 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.
The City Council discussed the Ramsey application at their February, 2008 Council
Meeting. At that meeting, the applicant distributed a report from TSP, dated June 20,
2007, regarding a building analysis and code review of the Historic Brookings City Hall.
The Council discussed portions of the June report, and the Council requested that TSP
provide information related to Criteria No. 1 from Resolution 68-04, indicating the
doorways and options that were studied for accessibility options. A supplemental
report was provided by TSP, which is included. The applicant has also provided a letter
from Charles Larson, dated March 17, 2008, plus several attachments, which are also
included following the applicant’s letter.
Staff has reviewed all of the submitted materials, and is providing the following
comments:
TSP report, dated June 20, 2007:
Greg Miller visited with the author, Alan Weiskamp, on Friday, February 29, 2008, to
discuss the report. The following notes were made regarding that conversation:
Paragraph # 1 – Project Statement. D. Ramsey constructed ADA and Life Safety
Compliant deck and ramp. Miller disputed the claim that the ramp and stair are
compliant for the following reasons:
1. Ramp Surface – 1010.7.1 IBC – ramp surface shall be of slip resistant material.
2. Ramps shall have handrails complying with Section 1010.9.1
3. Steps shall have handrails complying with 1009.11
4. Guards on deck must comply with 1012 IBC.
Mr. Wieskamp agreed that full compliance not met. He was not aware that the ramp
also encroached along the alley right of way.
Paragraph #2 of Site Section – Building background. It has not been substantiated that
Building Official gave direction. Miller stated that UBC Code is same as IBC and the
change of code had no impact. Weiskamp agreed – only differences between codes
were not applicable to this project.
Paragraph #3 – last sentence – Many cities with historic districts will create special
zoning or broad variance allowances to achieve historic context. Miller said he agreed
but that he did not believe that this deck has historic context – Weiskamp agreed.
54
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Code Analysis
Paragraph #2 – Miller disputed that the upper main level be classified A-3 occupancy.
Ms. Ramsay testified that area used often the same as grade level area which is A-2
occupancy. Weiskamp agreed. Miller informed Weiskamp that when he had been in the
facility, there were no restrooms on the upper main level. Therefore, any restrooms
added after 2004 did not have a building permit and the fixture count is not adequate
for assembly use.
Weiskamp also could not recall if exits that he has identified had exit lights, which would
be required.
Code Findings
Paragraph #3 – Solution for exterior ramp at east entrance. First Sentence – Miller
pointed out that the exiting conflict at this point already exists and that adding the ADA
ramp would not require the door to be moved or altered because the conflict already
exists at that door – Weiskamp agreed.
Paragraph #4 – Miller stated he has never seen an opinion from the Historical Society
that says that changing a door or window would have an impact on the historical value.
He noted that Weiskamp already has stated that there have been modifications to the
building. He also, admitted that in his experience with historical buildings, some of the
modifications we have discussed would most likely NOT have an impact on Historic
value.
Summary
Paragraph 1 – Miller told Weiskamp that we agree and that the steps could possibly be
restored.
Paragraph 3 – full requirements of the code would mean installing more restrooms,
getting a building permit, having handrails and guardrails that meet code, having a ramp
made from materials that meet code, having doorways, hardware and exit lighting that
meet code. There needs to be guards on the windows, or install safety glass Section
2406 IBC. There may be several other code items as well.
Paragraph 4 – Miller asked Weiskamp if he could verify that there was 48” clearance at
the door where the encroachment takes place – Exhibit 2 – requirements 48” in front
of door. – Weiskamp said he knows that it is closer to 42” – “Not fully compliant with
ADA” – Weiskamp agreed.
The code does not require that Historic buildings be ADA accessible. Weiskamp
agreed that the intent of the code is compliance but since historic buildings are not
required to be fully compliant, modifications can be made to have less than the 48”
landing area. Therefore, encroachment onto front sidewalk may not be necessary.
55
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
TSP supplemental report, dated June 20, 2007:
The following clarifications and comments have been made by City staff regarding the
supplemental TSP report:
Page 2:
The report states that the restrooms on the lower level are existing and do not meet
ADA clearances. The applicant indicated these restrooms did meet ADA requirements
during the court hearings.
Page 5: Door No. 3:
It is City staff’s recommendation that this doorway would have been a very good option
for an accessible entrance that did not protrude over the public right-of-way. TSP
indicates that the door system could be raised 34 inches to be level with the upper main
floor but the system should not move towards the exterior façade in order to maintain
the exterior brick work and stone detailing. A raised floor system could be constructed
over the steps and another exterior landing could connect to an exterior ramp system.
These alterations could have been constructed without negatively impacting the
historical nature of the building.
Page 6: Door No. 4:
The TSP report indicates that if this doorway was to serve as the main accessible exit,
the swing would need to be reversed to swing in the path of egress. This situation
would fall under the requirements of Chapter 10 of the International Existing Building
Code, Section 1003.3, which is attached. The code states that, in part:
“When approved by the code official, the front or main exit doors need not swing in the
direction of the path of exit travel, provided that other approved means of egress having
sufficient capacity to serve the total occupant load are provided.”
The building official feels that there are other approved means of egress that have
capacity to serve the total occupant load, which include the doorway on the northeast
corner of the building. The building official would not require this door to be moved as
stated in options A and B.
Page 7: Door No. 6:
The TSP report indicates that if the current ramp would remain, the ramp and deck
surface would need to be modified to meet the building code, as well as modifying the
tread nosing, walking surface, and the addition of hand rails. City staff concurs that
these modifications would be required if the existing ramp and deck would remain, as it
currently does not meet all factors of the building code and ADA requirements, which
are:
5. Ramp Surface – 1010.7.1 IBC – ramp surface shall be of slip resistant material.
6. Ramps shall have handrails complying with Section 1010.9.1
7. Steps shall have handrails complying with 1009.11
8. Guards on deck must comply with 1012 IBC.
56
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
Page 8:
The TSP report indicates that the projection of the deck could be reduced by 10 inches,
which would reduce the amount of the encroachment onto public right-of-way for the
north portion of the deck. The report also indicates that if AHJ would make a ruling on
the ornamental brickwork at the front entry, this projection could be reduced even
further. City staff concurs with these comments.
Charles Larson letter dated March 17, 2008:
Item No. 4 in the letter indicates that Alan Wieskamp has inspected the deck and states
it complies with the ADA. According to the TSP supplemental report, Page 7, Door
No. 6, the current deck nearly meets the code with some modifications needing to be
made which were stated above. The deck does not comply with the building code in its
current state.
Summary of Staff Recommendation:
The deck application is essentially two issues: the encroachment on the north side of
the building, and the encroachment on the east side of the building. It is staff’s
recommendation that there has been no reason shown that the east encroachment
should be allowed. This portion of the deck was constructed without a building permit,
and without the applicant’s land survey information, and was ultimately constructed over
the right-of-way. The ramp portion of the structure could be modified to remove the
encroachment from the alley right-of-way.
Regarding the encroachment on the north side of the building, it has been shown in the
above comments, that other options were available. One option would have been to
modify the deck to enter the Door No. 3. This option would not encroach upon the
City right-of-way. One lesser favored option would be to reduce the encroachment by
ten inches by changing the landing size, which Mr. Weiskamp stated in his report.
Action:
- Discussion, Possible Action
- Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Concur with staff and
recommend denial of application
57
HISTORIC BROOKINGS CITY HALL
BUILDING ANALYSIS AND CODE REVIEW
SIOUX FALLS, SD
TSP PROJECT NO. 04070415
JUNE 20, 2007
PREPARED BY:
TSP, INC.
1112 NORTH WEST AVENUE
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57104
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project statement
The purpose of this study is to review the history and current state of the Old Brookings City Hall. The
owner, Donna Ramsay constructed an ADA and Life Safety compliant deck and ramp on the northeast
corner of the building. I was asked by Charles Larson, her attorney, to provide an expert review of the
building ascertain as to whether there are any other alternatives to make the Old City Hall comply with
federal law egress requirements (i.e. ADA) and Life Safety (i.e. Building Codes).
Qualifications
I am a registered Architect with the states of South Dakota (License No. 8622), Iowa (License No.
05461), and Illinois (License No. 001.018936). My experience in historic structures and their research,
documentation, and rehabilitation dates back 22 years. In those years, I had the privilege to work with a
firm which specialized in documentation of historic structures using a process called
stereo-photogrammetry. The use of this system allowed for highly accurate measurements and drawings
of existing conditions which were used to document and archive historic structures for inclusion into the
Library of Congress and the HABS/HAER (Historic American Building Survey/Historic American
Engineering Record respectively) program.
The list of buildings which I was responsible for production of the documentation and drawings which
were submitted to the Library of Congress were: Independence Hall, Merchants’ Exchange, First Bank,
Philadelphia, PA; The White House, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Corcoran Gallery of Art,
Washington D.C.; Olana, Saratoga Monument, Upstate New York, Hoboken Ferry Terminal, State
Capitol, New Jersey, and a host of other nationally significant historic structures throughout the United
States.
I was also the Zoning Administrator for the City of Hills, Iowa. In that capacity, I helped develop the
City’s first ever Land Use Plan and helped update the zoning text and zoning maps for the first time since
1966.
Building History
The original Brookings City Hall at 310 4th Street was constructed in 1884 to house the growing City
Government and the Fire Department. The fire house was designed and constructed to accommodate the
draft horses used to pull the tank and hand pumper apparatus. There were two apparatus bays on the west
half of the building which are at street level and exit onto 4th Street. This construction is slab-on-grade.
Under the east half of the building there is a basement which housed the boiler, coal bunker, and storage
for City records. The main upper floor above the basement housed the City offices. This floor level was
approximately four feet above the city street and was accessed by rounded front steps radiating out to the
street level. Above the City offices and the apparatus bays, the second floor was comprised of the City’s
council chambers and elected officials offices.
The building remains largely unchanged on the exterior except for changes made by the City during its
use of the building. The clock tower which was positioned on the building’s northeast corner was
removed as were the original radiating stone steps at the front entry. The apparatus bay doors with arched
openings were removed to allow for larger motorized trucks and one large overhead door was installed.
Windows were modified or closed on the basement level and the front picture window was modified.
The building was designed during the Italian Renaissance Period of American Architecture (1880 to
1940) and incorporates an eclectic combination of Beaux-Arts and Italianate styles. Many of the
identifiers of these styles are arched windows and/or entryways; the use of classical detailing stone of
variable or contrasting color over a palette of monotone brick; a heavy eave line with brackets, a tower
element, symmetrical facades and steps to the main entry. This building differs in that in typical Beaux-
Arts style, the entrances were centered between a symmetrically equal placement of windows and column
elements. This building has neither.
Because the date of the design and its construction in the waning years of the Victorian era the design is
slightly more eclectic and does not conform to the typical Beaux-Arts archetype. The design of the tower
and the cornice brackets shows a preference for the more popular architectural style during the early years
of 1900 through 1940, Italian Renaissance.
Italian Renaissance architecture and the other “period styles” looked to the past for inspiration. The trend
toward designing in period architecture gained momentum following the 1893 Chicago World's Fair, The
Columbian Exposition, where historical interpretations of European styles were encouraged. Leaders in
the form were McKim, Mead & White, Cass Gilbert, and Richard Morris Hunt.
It is in this timeframe we find the stylistic result which is the Brookings City Hall. The tower and cornice
of the building are certainly in the Italianate style in most respects. The missing cupola as seen in historic
photographs is completed in a stylized Italian Renaissance design. This combination or “eclectic” use of
styles was becoming predominant during the end of the Victorian and American Classical Renaissance
Eras after which the modernist movement started to take hold and architecture schools began to teach and
reinforce the ideals behind the modernist movement.
The fact that the building is included in the Brookings Commercial Historic District listed with the United
States National Register of Historic Places as Property #16 establishes that the City of Brookings agrees
that the buildings which comprise their downtown district are of historic value and they wish to protect
their historic value.
One can only assume that with this dedication of the downtown business district as a historic district
which is to be protected, the City of Brookings intends for the buildings in this district to maintain their
historic character as much as possible.
SITE
Building Background
The building is situated in the middle of the block with alley access along its east façade. Within this
alley are available parking spaces and a ramp and stair currently constructed to allow for wheelchair
access to the upper first floor. According to a photographic record, the front radial steps were removed
and straight pre-cast concrete steps were added to the front entry in the 50’s or 60’s during the City’s
ownership.
These steps remained until 2001. At that time, the building which had been purchased by the current
Owner Donna Hickerson Ramsay in 1999 was in disrepair. The steps which were now approximately 40
years old no longer met current codes and were designated as the primary entrance and egress of the
building’s main level. In 2001, the Owner removed the deteriorating concrete steps and proceeded to
replace them with a wood stair designed per the City Building Official’s direction to meet the current
code (UBC, Uniform Building Code) After subsequent work on the building and as part of the building
permit, the wood stairs were replaced with a fully code compliant ramp and stair system structure which
afforded a safer approach to the front entrance.
This author understands that the City has zoning laws in force which provide for zero street setback on
downtown buildings, or at a minimum, the buildings in the historic downtown district. This setback does
not allow for any permanent construction or building element to overlap the sidewalk unless permission is
granted by the City through a variance. This restriction would include stairs and stoops at all street front
entries for all structures along historic Fourth Street. The
original radial front steps which the City replaced had overlapped the sidewalk and thus the current
setback. Steps of this design would be typical for a building of this architectural type. After the City
removed the original steps and replaced them with the straight concrete steps, the new stair configuration
was set flush with the face of the building and did not overlap the sidewalk. This configuration remained
until the steps were removed in 2004 and the current ramp and platform design was begun under the 1997
UBC and later completed in 2005 after the City adopted the 2003 IBC (International Building Code).
The current construction is not in conformance with the current zoning and overlaps the sidewalk by
approximately 18 inches, or approximately equal to what the historic radial steps did when the building
was first constructed.
It is unclear why zoning is in place with zero setbacks in a historic district which does not allow for
projections or variances in front of the downtown buildings when so many buildings are in violation. This
condition would be uncharacteristic of historic downtowns. Observing the historic photographs and many
of the existing conditions along 4th Street where storefronts still maintain steps to entrances which overlap
the setback many of the violations are either original fabric, items which have never been removed and
are grandfathered into the current zoning. If the City of Brookings is serious about the designation of its
historic district, it should reconsider the zero setback requirements of its historic structures to allow for
the restoration of each to their original configurations. Many cities with historic districts will create
special zoning or broad variance allowances to achieve cohesive historic context.
Code Analysis
Per the attached code plan, (Exhibit #1), I have reviewed the building per the 2003 International Building
Code. This code has been adopted by the majority of the municipalities in the state of South Dakota. The
upper level is not shown but is comprised of apartments totaling almost 5,000 square feet. This R2
occupancy totals 25 occupants per the International Building Code’s table 1004.1.2, allowing for 200 SF
per occupant. This allows for 12.5 individuals per stair to exit to the exterior. One stair exits via an
opening to the street level on the north, the other via an interior hallway which exits to the upper main
floor and down five risers to the double doors which open to the alley.
The upper main level is comprised of three occupancies as the building is currently configured. The
south, or back of the building is storage (S occupancy) and restrooms which allows one occupant for each
300 SF, and offices and meeting rooms which can be classified as Business (B occupancy), one occupant
for every 100 SF. These occupancies contribute only eight individuals to the load exiting through the
alley egress. The apparatus bay is an open room which is classified as A2 (Assembly which serves food
and drink) which accounts for 90 occupants at 15 SF per occupant. This space requires two exits per
code, section 1014.1 and 1014.2.1, whenever there are more than 50 occupants per space. Each exit must
be separated by a specified distance based on room dimensions. The exits meet current code
requirements for size, separation and distance but do not meet requirements for handicapped access.
Exits are required to be handicapped accessible if the building is accessible. Chapter 1007.1, exception
No. 1 of the IBC allows for no requirements in existing buildings. The building owner has done their best
to meet accessibility requirements whenever possible. One exit is at grade on the north where 45 of the
occupants join with the occupants egressing down the stairs from the apartments above. The second non-
conforming exit is from the back of the large room which egresses up one step to a landing and then up
four more risers to the main level hallway where those 45 occupants join with the S, B, and R occupants
exiting from their respective spaces, down five risers to the exit onto the alley. The last space is the front
area on the upper main level which is designated as A3 (Assembly, other uses). This front area is used as
the reception to the building and is currently and historically the main entrance. The egress from this area
requires two exits as its capacity at 15 SF per occupant, equaling 51 total occupants. The front entrance is
currently accessible as it is serviced by an existing wood deck and ramp structure. The rear of this space
opens to the main level hallway and joins the 45 occupants from the apparatus bay, the 12 occupants
egressing down the stairs from the apartments above and the eight occupants from the rear rooms to exit
down five risers to the doors onto the alley exit.
Code Findings
In the current configuration, each space of the building on the upper main floor can reach the accessible
route on the front of the building. This door is easily configured to meet clearances and requirements
listed in the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) guidelines, Appendix B, Chapter 4.13, Figure 25b,
(included as exhibit no. 2). Because of the angle of the door and the proximity of the door to the face of
the building the free area space around this door must meet the requirements shown in Exhibit No. 2.
This configuration is impossible to achieve without overlapping the sidewalk to some extent.
The only other door with possible accessible exit designation which could exit the upper main floor is the
door exiting onto the alley. This location has many issues to address to make it accessible. One would
require some form of interior ramp to access the alley level. An interior ramp would require major
reconfiguration of the floor plan and relocation of the interior stairs to achieve. A second solution is
adding an exterior ramp at that location. This requires raising the door height to be level with the interior
floor level and framing in the stairs at that door with wood floor framing to form a platform on the interior
side of the raised doors.
Both solutions are achievable with many modifications to the plan. Currently the doorway which exits
the north half of the upper main level (A3) exists directly into the path of the occupants exiting down the
stairs from the second floor. If this doorway was established as the accessible route, this conflict would
require the relocation of the stairs. Each of the following solutions is very hard to achieve in this
building. The first scenario is difficult and expensive from a structural standpoint. The building’s floor
systems are poured-in-place reinforced concrete. This system ties to masonry support walls and removing
or relocating the stair opening in the hallway area would require removal of concrete floors with
reinforcing and ties into walls. Without in depth study of the structure by a licensed structural engineer, it
is not possible to predict if removing sections of the floor is feasible or if it would compromise the
structure in any way. Reconfiguring existing conditions to allow for an accessible egress at the alley exit
is not structurally or economically feasible.
Any solution such as raising the alley exit door would require careful review of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,
and the National Trust’s White Papers for Restoration Guidelines. Not doing so would be in conflict with
the spirit of the designation of the historic district as specified in the National Register’s Guidelines, and
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). It has been my experience that the National Register’s
and the SHPO’s recommendations would be that the historic district be monitored and alterations
reviewed by a local authority with all approvals and denials based on what is best for the historic district
to maintain the intrinsic value of the district designation as submitted and documented.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
With this building being the Old City Hall and its value to the history of the City of Brookings, special
attention and care should be taken to reduce the alterations of the structure and to restore as many
elements to their original appearance as possible.
That being said, it is preferable that any alterations are preferable to be kept to the interior of a historic
building whenever possible. It is a common desire to keep exteriors as untouched and minimally
modified as possible. Based on the findings of this report, it would create a hardship to the Building
Owner to modify floor levels and exit routes on the interior of the building to meet current codes for
egress. This is best done, and most often done on historic buildings with exterior ramps or stairs. This
author can think of no historic building that included stair of ramp modifications to the interior of a
structure. Stairs, ramps, and elevators have usually been added to exteriors or existing grades have been
modified to allow for wheelchair access.
It is commendable that the Building Owner would wish to make the effort to meet the full requirements of
the code with the goal to make as many spaces as possible within the building, wheelchair accessible. By
current codes this may not be required or any existing conditions allowed to remain unless approved by
authorities having jurisdiction. In addition the original radial stair visible in the historic photographs
would not meet code and if still in place would create a hazard for occupants leaving the building. A new
design for a proper landing and wider treads is appropriate. The original historically accurate steps can
not be replicated to match what they were at the turn of the century because of life safety issues. But a
new solution is preferable at the front entry.
The conditions for providing egress for the building, limits the possibilities for handicapped public
access. The front entry is the prime entrance and would be the preferable designated entrance per the
ADA laws and guidelines 36.405 for “equal access through reasonable accommodation”. But per
Appendix B, Section 4.1.7 in ADAAG, in a Historic structure, one accessible route from a site access
point to an accessible entrance shall be provided with the exception that the building could contain
separate entrances to each accessible floor level or a separate entrance, not designated as the main entry.
This is not preferable, as the handicapped individual is forced into an entry procession that is separate
from the rest of the public. The entrances are usually at the rear of the side entrance to the building and
do enter into main interior spaces.
A main public entry, if feasible, should be provided at the building’s original main entry. This entry
should be accessible and meet current codes. Although the lower main floor or apparatus bay can be
accessed by wheelchair, the remainder of the building is only accessible by wheelchair through the
existing ramp and deck system which provides entry to the main building entrance (preferable). The deck
does protrude into the sidewalk and past the building setback, but does not project past where the original
historic steps would have been. Therefore this is no worse of a condition than other existing building
steps located elsewhere within the historic district.
To view the building as a whole for its historic value and contribution to the historic district and the
history of Brookings, it should be noted that every effort should be made to maintain the building in the
most historic context as possible while addressing the modern life safety provisions provided for in
today’s codes. In my past experience as a preservationist architect and as a zoning administrator, this
building would be designated as a candidate for a zoning variance. The purpose of a variance in city code
is to allow flexibility to modify rules to fit unusual circumstances. The building, the public, the City’s
historic district and vitality of that district all would benefit from the use of the building and the proper
conditions to use the building to its fullest extent by allowing access by all to each of the public spaces
within the building. Based on the results of this study, the building can not be altered to meet life safety
requirements of the code without significant structural alterations and physical change in appearance.
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 modifications 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.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
1
HISTORIC BROOKINGS CITY HALL
SUPPLEMENT TO
BUILDING ANALYSIS AND CODE REVIEW
SIOUX FALLS, SD
TSP PROJECT NO. 04070415
MARCH 16, 2008
PREPARED BY:
TSP, INC.
1112 NORTH WEST AVENUE
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57104
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Statement
Supplement to Building Report dated June 20, 2007. This supplement report attempts to
address each doorway serving the upper portion of the main level for possible use as an
accessible exit/entrance. Please refer to Exhibit A for the labeling of the doors in this
report.
Code Background
According to International Building Code (IBC) 2003, chapter 34 – Existing Buildings,
Section 3409 – Accessibility for Historic Buildings, paragraph 3409.3 states “Existing
buildings, or portions thereof, that undergo a change of group or occupancy shall have all
of the following accessible features:
1) At least one accessible building entrance.
2) At least one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary
function areas.
3) Signage complying with Section 1110.
4) Accessible parking, where accessible parking is being provided.
5) At least one accessible passenger loading zone, when loading zones are provided.
6) At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible
passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.
Where it is technically infeasible to comply with the new construction standards for any
of these requirements for a change of group or occupancy, the above items shall conform
to the requirements to the maximum extent technically feasible. Change of group or
occupancy that incorporates any alterations or additions shall comply with this section
and Sections 3409.4, 3409.5, 3409.6 and 3409.7.
The chapter 34 code sections listed above attempt to address questions that would arise
out of alterations to an existing building which might affect the accessibility of that
building. The accessible routes required are for primary functions. If the existing building
has functions or uses that are not its primary use these functions and spaces would not
need to be accessible but other provisions could be provided to meet the needs of
handicapped individuals.
In the case of the Old City Hall, the restrooms on the accessible lower level are existing
and do not meet ADA clearances. The restrooms on the upper main level however do
meet clearance requirements and would provide the building with the ability to have an
assembly space with accessible toilet facilities.
Chapter 3409.8 – Historic Buildings, states, Where compliance with the requirements for
accessible routes, ramps, entrances or toilet facilities would threaten or destroy the
historic significance of the building or facility, as determined by the Authority Having
Jurisdiction, (AHJ) the alternative requirements of Sections 3409.8.1 through 3409.8.5
for that element shall be permitted.
3
Specifically in the case of Old City Hall, section 3409.8.3 – Entrances, states “At least
one main entrance shall be accessible. There are two exceptions. One - If the main
entrance can not be made accessible, an accessible nonpublic entrance that is unlocked
while the building is occupied shall be provided. Two – If a main entrance can not be
made accessible, a locked accessible entrance with a notification system or remote
monitoring shall be provided.
The purpose of this section is to reinforce the spirit of the ADA Guidelines in honoring
persons with disabilities to have the same access to a building or services as able bodied
persons. The intent is that if the building’s primary entrance can be made accessible,
this should be the first choice. The code recognizes that not all buildings have the
possibility to have the main entrance be made accessible thus the two exceptions. The
ADA and the National Parks Services’ Historic Preservation Briefs #32 recognize that the
solution shall not place “undue hardship” on the employer or building owner to make
such accommodations.
Per the National Park Service’s preservation guidelines, the Old City Hall falls into the
category of a rehabilitated historic building. This provides for the adaptive reuse of an
historic structure for a use of other than its original design. The allowance of
considerable remodeling of interiors is allowed with limited or stringent limitations of
exterior modifications. The theory is the exterior fabric of a structure is much harder to
replicate or return to its original state if it is modified. When at all possible it is desirable
to leave the exterior as un-modified as possible.
When modifications must be made it is desirable to make modifications on a non-
principle façade. An addition for example should be constructed on the rear of the
building or along the side of the building where it has the least impact on the existing
ornamentation or visibility of the principal façade. The connection of any addition
should be as minimal as possible resulting in the least amount of damage to original
material. The addition should also be of a different style of architecture or be of a
different material so as to provide a distinction between what is historic and what is not.
With the following background, the result of all the above statements is that with an
historic structure, it is desirable if not required (depending on circumstances) to make that
structure accessible. The main entrance is required to be made accessible whenever
possible. If not possible, an alternative route should be designed to impact the building in
the least possible way and shall not decrease the level of safety of existing conditions.
To analyze exit paths within the building and at exterior points the author will refer to the
attached building plan (Exhibit A) and the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 32:
Making Historic Properties Accessible (Exhibit B).
4
Door No. 1: Current doorway 30 inches
wide and is too narrow to meet IBC code
or ADA guidelines as an exit. The
minimum width is to be 36 inches.
Furthermore the opening would require a
change in the door to swing out in the path
of egress. As you can see from the photo,
widening of door may not be feasible
without consulting a structural engineer to
analyze the support of the curved arch
lintel over the door and adjacent window.
This modification requires destruction of
exterior brickwork, window sill and
possibly the scrollwork keystone at the
center of the arch. Also the opening does
not meet the spirit of ADA or NPS Brief
No. 32 for its approach as the “back door”
to the facility. If a ramp were constructed
to serve this door, the ramp would need to
be located towards the rear of the building
where the existing parking spaces are
currently. The accessible route from the “public way” would require the route to cross
behind parking spaces (where the current deck is now) along the alley which is an unsafe
condition and should be avoided.
Door No. 2: Current door is 35 inches
wide. Door is too narrow to meet IBC or
ADA guidelines as an exit. Widening will
require saw cutting of concrete structural
wall. The steps are poured-in-place
concrete integral with the surrounding
floor system. Modifications to this entire
section of the building make any work in
this area undesirable. As you can see by
the photo the door sill height can not be
raised to the level of the upper main level
because of a lack of head clearance
beneath the steps which serve the second
floor. The landing also serves as a landing
for the stairs existing up from the lower
level. To modify any portion of this
doorway or the stairs to connect the two
levels of the main floor would require
considerable structural modifications, the
destruction of the cast iron rail and newel
posts of the interior stair and may in fact
create other code violations.
5
Door No. 3: Opening is a modern aluminum
storefront set in a modern aluminum skinned
insulated panel wall that is installed at the
approximate location of the original side
entrance doorway. The current configuration
is too close to last interior step and does not
provide ample landing area at the bottom of
the steps. From the exterior photo you can
verify that the door system can be raised
approximately 34 inches to be level with the
upper main floor but the system should not
move towards the exterior façade very far in
order to maintain the exterior brick-work and
stone detailing. To make this doorway work,
a raised floor system would need to be
constructed over the steps and another
exterior landing can connect to an exterior
ramp system. All modification can be made
without impacting any historic fabric.
However this location does not meet the spirit
of ADA or NPS Brief No. 32 for this
approach can be seen as the “back door” to
the facility. Satisfying the requirements of
this door to make it an accessible entrance
does not however guarantee an compliant
accessible route because not only does this
door or door #1 need to be accessible, but also
door #4 would need to meet accessibility
requirements as well for this to qualify as an
accessible route.
6
Door No. 4: This door serves as the
main secondary exit from the upper
main level. The opening is 36 inches
wide. If the doorway was to serve as
the main accessible exit the swing
would need to be reversed to swing in
the path of egress. Doing so creates an
obstacle to those exiting down the stairs
(visible just through the door. Door
number 3 is just outside this door and
to the left.) To meet accessibility
requirements as an entrance/exit this
opening would be required by code to
be relocated to eliminate this conflict
Possible solutions:
A) Move door to the east (left in
photo) away from stair to provide
adequate landing area for those
individuals coming down the stairs.
Within the section of wall to the left is
the, now disconnected, original
electrical service entrance (visible in
the photo of door #3) and a voice/data termination block currently in use. The option to
cut a new door into the wall could be prohibitively expensive to move due to cutting a
hole into a solid concrete wall with unknown structural implications can not be
determined at this time. The unique historic qualities of the original electric service panel
should be saved if other solutions are possible. The relocation of the voice/data
termination block for the building would also be prohibitively expensive to relocate if
other solutions are available.
B) The doorway could be moved to north (towards the viewer) into room to allow the
egress swing to swing out and not impede into exit stair. This would require the
construction of three walls and a ceiling within the room to create an alcove to recess the
door. An alcove would effectively divide the room and reduce its available floor area and
the ability to use it as an gathering space. The room would become a large entry
vestibule. The change would require the demolition of approximately 18 to 24 inches of
the existing structural concrete wall that the current door resides in. It can not be
determined if this change is feasible without a structural analysis. This additional wall
demolition is to accommodate the ADA maneuvering clearances for approaches of
swinging doors (refer to Exhibit 2 of the original report). As stated for door #3 this
option must accompany either option at Door No. 1 or Door No. 3 to create an accessible
route for the use of this space as an entrance/exit.
7
Door No. 5: This door as an exit, let
alone as an accessible exit is
completely impossible to modify to
meet any code and can only be seen as
an existing condition and left as-is. The
passage is too narrow. There are head
clearance issues which can not be
overcome without modifying another
set of stairs which serve the upper floor
and a required exit stair from the lower
level. All the doors are 30 inches wide
and because all of the walls are poured-
in-place concrete, with structural ties
between walls, floors and stair
construction, this area cannot be
widened without major structural
engineering and construction expense.
Door No. 6: This opening is the current
main entrance and is a modern aluminum
storefront door. It is 36 inches wide and is
considered the “front” door to the building
and is thus the most desirable to maintain
that function as an accessible entrance as
well. In the current configuration no
modifications are required to the opening
or the door leaf itself. However the
accessible route will require a ramp and
deck surface to meet the requirements of
current building codes. The current deck
constructed on site very nearly meets
current codes with some modifications for
the addition of handrails, modified tread
nosings and walking surface demarcation
required to bring the structure into
compliance with ADA guidelines. Upon
field measurement it was found that the
8
deck railing was installed 74 inches in a perpendicular measurement from the face of
door. Per ADA guidelines, chapter 4.13.6. Figure 25 (see original report’s Exhibit 2)
when a door is approached from the side as the front entry is, an area 54 inches wide by
the width of the door, plus 24 inches is required. Field measurement of existing
ornamental brick around the door shows that the brick projects 10 inches into this
clearance. It could be argued that the effective approach to the door could be required to
be 64 inches (54 inches plus the 10 inches of brick projection) instead of the current 74
inches. The projection of the deck could be reduced by 10 inches and if the AHJ would
make a ruling on the ornamental brickwork at the front entry, this projection could be
reduced even further. However to meet the code minimum, the deck landing area/door
approach would require the deck to project onto the sidewalk.
Conclusion
As per the findings of the original report dated June 20th, 2007, the current use of the
front door as the accessible entrance is deduced to be the most practical and prudent use
of all the possibilities. From a historic building preservation standpoint, this entrance
required no modifications of the original building fabric other than the replacement of the
front door which may have been lost long ago.
All other interior doorways require the addition of interior ramps and modifications to
solid concrete structure which is prohibitively expensive and perhaps unattainable
without major modifications. From the building’s historical significance and its current
use, it is not practical to go to such lengths.
The two exterior doorways each have their own challenges with one requiring the
destruction of the exterior fabric and an unknown amount of structural work, and the
other being a possibility with a revised deck and ramp system but in either case either
doorway only accomplishes half of the problem because of required modifications to an
existing interior doorway which has its own challenges which may or may not be
attainable based on structural analysis and considerable expense.
That being said, it is the finding of this report that the front main entrance is the most
appropriate accessible entrance to the upper main level and the building’s accessible
restrooms. The only modification required to my understanding would be for a variance
for a projection onto a city sidewalk and no building modifications. This would be in
keeping with the direction of the IBC, the ADA and NPS’s Preservation Brief #32.
March 25, 2008 City Council Packet
120
13. Adjourn.