HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_05_13 CC PKT 1
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
3:30 p.m. ~~ Council Pictures
4:00 p.m. ~~ Reception for Ginger Thomson
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through
innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
Reception for Ginger Thomson
The citizens of Brookings are cordially invited to attend a reception honoring Council Member Ginger Thomson
for her dedicated service to the City of Brookings. The reception will be held on
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 4:00 p.m.
City Hall Community Room (under Fire Department)
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Election to Council Members Bartley,
Brunner and McClemans.
2. Discussion regarding liquor issues.
3. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
4. City Clerk Reports: Upcoming Council Meetings and Council Invites & Obligations.
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion*.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A
motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 37-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-06STI,
Chip Seal Project.
D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-05STI, 32nd
Avenue Street Project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
* Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time,
without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed
from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items
means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting
documentation.
2
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Presentation of the Annual Mayor’s Awards for Historic Preservation.
6. Open Forum.
7. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
8. Ordinance No. 18-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 58-36 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To Fleeing From A
Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
9. Ordinance No. 19-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 82-1 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To The Definition
Of Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
10. Ordinance No. 20-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In
The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. 82-253. Stop required upon approaching stopped
emergency vehicle using signals.
2nd reading: May 27th
11. Ordinance No. 21-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In
The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. 82-254. Yielding right-of-way to emergency
vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency vehicle not to exercise right-of-way arbitrarily.
2nd reading: May 27th
12. Ordinance No. 22-08, An Ordinance Amending Brookings Ordinance Section 82-302
And Pertaining To The Requirement That Speed Of A Vehicle Be Reasonable Under
The Existing Conditions.
2nd reading: May 27th
13. Ordinance No. 23-08, An Ordinance Revising Ordinance Section 82-563 And Pertaining
To Prohibited Obstruction Of Vehicle Windows In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
14. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield And Front Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
15. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle
Windshield Sun Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
3
16. Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting The Operation
Of Improperly Repaired Or Adjusted Vehicles In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for
removal of graffiti in the city of Brookings, South Dakota. (4/15 email from Steve)
2nd reading: May 27th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
18. Public hearing and action on a house moving request from John and Ciara Bos to move a
one-story, ranch style house from Springfield, SD (Governor’s House) to Lot 1, Block 3,
Esther Heights Addition, also known as 2006 David Cove.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
19. Presentation on Brookings Municipal Liquor Store Financials by Bill Purrington, Manager.
Informational
20. Executive Session for Marketing and Pricing Strategies.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
21. Executive Session for Contractual Reasons.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
22. 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.
4
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Election
to Council Members Michael Bartley, Ryan Brunner, and
Michael McClemans.
Estimated Time (5 minutes)
5
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
2. Discussion regarding liquor issues.
The City Council requested further discussion of various liquor issues, specifically a
further analysis of Senate Bill 126 regarding restaurant liquor licenses. City Attorney
Steve Britzman has provided the enclosed report regarding his interpretation. Also
enclosed is a draft ordinance regarding restaurant liquor licenses prepared by Britzman.
This was provided to the Council on April 15th. The complete text of SB 126 is also
enclosed.
Estimated Time – 45 minutes
6
A Review of the Provisions of SB 126
Prepared by: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney, City of Brookings
SB 126
Section 1. That chapter 35-4 be amended
by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to
read as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 35-4-11
or 35-4-11.1 or the on-sale license fees
established pursuant to subdivisions 35-4-2(4)
and (6), the governing board of any
incorporated municipality or the board of
county commissioners of any county may, by
ordinance, issue additional on-sale licenses for
full-service restaurants if the municipality or
county charges at least the minimum fee
required by section 7 of this Act.
Section 2. Terms used in this Act mean:
(1) "Bar," any permanently installed
counter within the restaurant area from which
alcoholic beverages are regularly served to
customers by a person who is tending bar or
drawing or mixing alcoholic beverages;
(2) "Full-service restaurant," any restaurant
at which a waiter or waitress delivers food and
drink offered from a printed food menu to
patrons at tables, booths, or the bar. Any
restaurant that only serves fry orders or food
and victuals such as sandwiches, hamburgers, or
salads is not a full-service restaurant;
(3) "Restaurant," any area in a building
maintained, advertised, and held out to the
public as a place where individually priced meals
are prepared and served primarily for
consumption in such area and where not more
than forty percent of the gross revenue of the
restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or
alcoholic beverages. The restaurant shall have a
dining room or rooms, a kitchen, and the
number and kinds of employees necessary for
the preparing, cooking, and serving of meals.
Discussion
Section 1.
35-4-11 pertains to the number of on-sale
licenses a city may authorize (based on
population). A municipality may issue
“additional” on-sale licenses for full-service
restaurants by ordinance, provided the
municipality charges at least the minimum fee
required by Section 7 of SB 126.
Section 2.
A full-service restaurant requires that a waiter
or waitress delivers food and drink and a
printed food menu. It would therefore appear
that fast-food restaurants would not be eligible
because food is typically served at a counter at
fast food restaurants, and there would not be a
“printed menu”. Also, most fast food would
involve food such as hamburgers, sandwiches,
salads and fried food, and this limited type of
food does not qualify.
Another Term in Section 3 which should be
reviewed is the term “restaurant”. The term
“restaurant” requires that the premises be
advertised as a restaurant, and within the
restaurant, a kitchen and dining room or dining
rooms are required. In addition, the restaurant
shall have waiters and waitresses serving
meals and employees to prepare and cook
the meals. It would appear that meals are
required to be “primarily” consumed in the
restaurant. Within the restaurant, not
more than 40% of the gross revenue can be
derived from the sale of alcoholic
beverages.
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
SB 126 Discussion
Section 3. An applicant for a full-service
restaurant on-sale license shall provide sufficient
documentation to the municipality to prove that
the primary source of revenue from the
operation of the restaurant will be derived from
the sale of prepared food and nonalcoholic
beverages and not from the sale of alcoholic
beverages. The supporting documentation
concerning the primary source of revenue
submitted pursuant to this section is confidential.
Section 3.
Provides the rule that requires the “primary”
source of revenue from the operation of the
restaurant be derived from the sale of food and
nonalcoholic beverages. Notably, this Section
does not include a definition of “primary”, but it
does indicate that within the restaurant, the
primary source of revenue must be from the
sale of prepared food and not other revenue
sources. It would appear the term “primary” is
defined in Section 4 as being 60% or greater.
Section 4. When the municipality is renewing a
full-service restaurant on-sale license, the
municipality shall condition the license renewal
upon receiving documentation that not more than
forty percent of gross sales from the preceding
twelve months operation of the full-service
restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or
alcoholic beverages. The full-service restaurant
on-sale licensee shall submit an annual report to
the municipality on the sales for the full-service
restaurant that includes an oath verifying the
validity of the information provided in the report.
The report and the supporting documentation
submitted pursuant to this section are
confidential. The report shall contain the annual
gross sales of the licensee for the following two
categories:
Section 4.
There are only two categories of revenue-- food and
nonalcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverage sales
which are to be reported, and alcoholic beverage sales
cannot exceed 40% of the gross sales from the annual
gross sales of these two categories. The supporting
documentation required of licensees is confidential, so
policies maintaining this confidentiality will have to be
maintained. The reporting requirements require an oath
verifying the validity of the information submitted. The
documentation would presumably be set forth on an
Annual Report which contains supporting
documentation (to be defined).
(1) Food and nonalcoholic beverage sales; and
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales.
Section 5. A full-service restaurant on-sale
licensee may only serve alcoholic beverages for
on-premise consumption in the bar and dining
room area of the restaurant.
Section 5.
Limits the service of alcoholic beverages to the bar and
dining room area of the restaurant. There is no specific
definition of the term “dining room”, but a reading of
the entire ordinance would indicate that it would be the
area where the meals are served by wait staff and
consumed. An exterior deck or sidewalk café served by
wait staff would seem to be contemplated as part of a
dining room.
Section 6. A restaurant that has a full-service
restaurant on-sale license may only be
Section 6.
Requires that the restaurant be advertised “primarily”
as a restaurant, though other terms could likely be used
if they would indicate that it is a “food eating
establishment”.
advertised or held out to the public as primarily
a food eating establishment. No licensee that has
a full-service restaurant on-sale license may
allow smoking on the licensed premises.
7
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
SB 126 Discussion
Section 7. That chapter 35-4 be amended
by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to
read as follows:
Any municipality or county adopting the
ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this Act may
issue additional on-sale licenses to full-service
restaurants. Any municipality adopting such
ordinance shall charge at least one dollar for
each person residing within the municipality as
measured by the last preceding decennial
federal census. Any county adopting such
ordinance shall charge at least one dollar for
each person residing within the county but
outside the boundary of any municipality as
measured by the last preceding decennial
federal census.
Section 7. Indicates that a municipality “may issue
additional on-sale licenses to full-service restaurants”.
This provision makes it clear that issuance of the
licenses is not mandatory. Also, “full-service
restaurants”, a term which is specifically defined in
Section 2 of the Act, is defined as the eligible recipient.
The license under this Section is actually “issued”,
whereas under current law in Brookings, SDCL 35-4-19
describes the arrangement of our current operating
agreement procedure as follows:
“If a municipality has been issued an on-sale and off-
sale license, then the governing board may by
resolution enter into an operating agreement with any
person for the specific purpose of operating the on-
sale establishment or the off-sale establishment, or
both for the municipality.”
Comparing and contrasting the language would indicate
that under the operating agreement procedure, the
license is “issued” to the municipality, with the city using
the operating agreement for the purpose of retaining a
manager to operate the on-sale establishment “for the
municipality.” Under SB 126, the license is not issued to
the municipality and is not operated by a manager for
the municipality. A reading of the entirety of SB 126
does not indicate that anyone except the licensee would
operate or utilize the restaurant license.
Each municipality or county shall set the on-
sale license fee within ninety days of adopting
the ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this Act
or within thirty days after the resolution of any
appeal pursuant to section 3 of this Act. After
the fee for an on-sale license issued pursuant to
this Act has been determined, no municipality
or county may change the fee for a period of
ten years unless a growth in population
reported by the federal decennial census
requires an increase in the fee.
Further language in Section 7 requires that the
municipality charge at least one dollar for each person
residing within the municipality, but there is no
mention of the amount of the renewal fee, though I
believe later reference would indicate it is $1500 as
provided in current alcoholic beverage law.
The license fee shall be set within 90 days of the
adoption of the initial ordinance authorizing
issuance of the on-sale licenses. In addition,
there is reference to a 30 day time period
concerning an appeal procedure in Section 3,
but there is no clarity on what appeal is
contemplated, so the 90 day rule is most
significant.
8
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
9
SB 126
Section 8. That chapter 35-4 be amended
by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to
read as follows:
Each licensee who owns an on-sale license
issued pursuant to subdivision 35-4-2(4) or (6) as
of January 1, 2008, and who purchased the license
or had the license transferred to such licensee at
any time between January 1, 2003, and January 1,
2008, shall report the amount originally paid for
the on-sale license to the municipality or county
that issued the license. The declared purchase
price shall be made under oath and shall include
the documents establishing the amount paid for
the on-sale license to the municipality or county
that issued the license. If the transaction for the
purchase of the on-sale license included real or
personal property, the full market value of the
real or personal property on the date of the
original sale shall be deducted from the total
transaction price to determine the amount paid
by the licensee for the on-sale license. The
burden of establishing the amount paid for the
license shall be on the licensee. Any licensee
contesting the fair market value of the real and
personal property may appeal the valuation to
circuit court.
Discussion
Section 8.
Section 8 is of great interest to current holders
of operating agreements in Brookings. SB 126
begins at Section 8 “each licensee who owns
an on-sale license issued pursuant to subdivision
35-4-2(4) [an on-sale license]…as of January 1,
2008”. Do we have any licensees other than
the city who own an on-sale license? No. The
heading of SDCL 35-4-19, though headings are
not actually part of the law, is interesting. The
heading reads “Retail licenses competing
with municipality prohibited – Exceptions
– Municipal operating agreement
permitted”. SDCL 35-4-19 begins “No
retailer license under this chapter, except for
licenses issued to … [malt beverage licensees]
may be granted to operate in any municipality
which has obtained a license under this
chapter.” The statute continues by allowing the
exception for operating agreements approved
by the governing board of the municipality to
operate the on-sale establishment…” for the
municipality.” Therefore, the foregoing language
makes it clear that in communities where the
city has been issued the on-sale license, there
are no other retailer licenses permitted. SB
126, it would appear, adds a new type of license
not contemplated by the current statute, and
therefore one could reasonably conclude that
the new class of licenses would now also be
available for issuance in local option
communities, and would not be considered
competition with the municipal on-sale license.
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
SB 126
Section 9. Any municipality or county adopting
the ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this Act
shall set the price of a new full-service restaurant
on-sale license, pursuant to section 7 of this Act,
at or above the current fair market value.
However, such full-service restaurant on-sale
license fee may not be less than the minimum on-
sale license fee established pursuant to subdivision
35-4-2(4) or (6). For purposes of this section, the
term, current fair market value, means the
documented price of the on-sale license most
recently sold between January 1, 2003, and
January 1, 2008, through an arm’s-length
transaction, less the value of any real or personal
property included in the transaction. Each on-sale
license holder as of January 1, 2008, who acquired
the on-sale license within the last five years shall
report to the municipality or county the date and
price paid for its on-sale license.
Section 10. Each municipality or county
adopting an ordinance pursuant to section 1 of
this Act shall maintain a registry of each on-sale
license that is being offered for sale at the price
established in section 9 of this Act and furnish a
copy of the registry to anyone who requests a
new full-service restaurant on-sale license. The
municipality or county may only issue a new
license pursuant to this Act if no on-sale license
is on the registry or a person desiring to
purchase an on-sale license listed on the
registry provides documentation showing that
the person is unable to purchase the on-sale
license at the price established in section 9 of
this Act and on terms satisfactory to both the
potential buyer and seller. The price of any on-
sale license registered as, for sale, with the
municipality or county shall be sold at the
current fair market price set by the municipality
or county pursuant to section 9 of this Act.
Nothing in this Act precludes the sale of an on-
sale license by a licensee not listed on the
registry.
Discussion
Section 9.
Requires the municipality to set the price of the
license “at or above the current fair market value”,
with a minimum license fee established by SDCL 35-
4-2 (4) which provides a fee of not less than one
dollar for each person residing within the
municipality. The term “current fair market value”
of a license is defined in Section 9 as “the
documented price of the on-sale license most
recently sold between January 1, 2003 and January
1, 2008, through an arm’s length transaction, less
the value of any real or personal property included
in the transaction”. While it is my position there
were no licenses sold in Brookings during the
foregoing time period because the City of
Brookings has continued to hold the only on-sale
license, I see no rule that prohibits the sale of the
SB 126 licenses, and therefore this definition will
need to be included in our ordinance for the
reporting of future sales.
Section 10.
A “Registry” is required of all municipalities
adopting the ordinance allowing issuance of on-
sale restaurant licenses. The purpose of the
Registry is to list restaurant licenses which are
for sale at the price established by the
municipality. The City can set the minimum
price at $1 per person or can use the current
fair market value of the licenses, based on sales,
but, of course, there would have to be sales
occurring, so the current fair market value
method would not likely be used for 10 years
since there would not likely be any sales during
the short 90 day period that the city has to set
the initial issuance price.
10
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
SB 126
Section 11. The existing on-sale license
holder is responsible for registering with the
municipality or county that the on-sale license is
for sale pursuant to section 10 of this Act.
Discussion
Section 11.
In Brookings, this section would appear to apply
only to the City – the sole holder of a retail on-
sale license, and to those future holders of SB
126 licenses. Requires the existing holder of a
restaurant license to register the fact the
restaurant license is for sale.
11
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND
REGULATION OF ON-SALE LICENSES FOR FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY
OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Sec. 6-50. Full-Service On-Sale Restaurant Licenses.
a. Definitions of Terms:
Terms used in this ordinance mean:
(1) “Bar,” any permanently installed counter within the restaurant area from which
alcoholic beverages are regularly served to customers by a person who is
tending bar or drawing or mixing alcoholic beverages;
(2) “Full-service restaurant,” any restaurant at which a waiter or waitress delivers
food and drink offered from a printed food menu to patrons at tables, booths, or
the bar. Any restaurant that only serves fry orders or food such as sandwiches,
hamburgers, or salads is not a full-service restaurant;
(3) “Restaurant,” any area in a building maintained, advertised, and held out to the
public as a place where individually priced meals are prepared and served
primarily for consumption in such area and where not more than forty percent
of the gross revenue of the restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or
alcoholic beverages. The restaurant shall have a dining room or rooms, a kitchen,
and the number and kinds of employees necessary for the preparing, cooking,
and serving of meals.
b. License Application Requirements:
Documentation: An applicant for a full-service restaurant on-sale license shall
provide sufficient documentation to the municipality with an application form
provided by the municipality to prove that the primary source of revenue from
the operation of the restaurant will be derived from the sale of prepared food
and nonalcoholic beverages and not from the sale of alcoholic beverages. The
12
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
supporting documentation concerning the primary source of revenue submitted
pursuant to this section is confidential.
c. Advertising Restriction:
A restaurant that has a full-service restaurant on-sale license may only be
advertised or held out to the public as primarily a food eating establishment.
d. Annual Reports:
The full-service restaurant on-sale licensee shall submit an annual report
and supporting documentation to the city on forms provided by the city of the
annual sales of the full-service restaurant, which includes an oath verifying the
validity of the information provided in the report. The report and the supporting
documentation submitted pursuant to this section are confidential. The report
shall contain the annual gross sales of the licensee for the following two
categories:
(i) Food and nonalcoholic beverage sales; and
(ii) Alcoholic beverages sales.
e. License Renewals:
When renewing a full-service restaurant on-sale license, the city shall condition
the license renewal upon receiving documentation that not more than forty
percent of gross sales from the preceding twelve months operation of the full-
service restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
f. Only Retail, On-Sale Service Permitted:
A full-service restaurant on-sale licensee may only serve alcoholic beverages for
on-premise consumption in the bar and dining room area of the restaurant.
g. Smoking Prohibited:
No licensee that has a full-service restaurant on-sale license may allow smoking
on the licensed premises.
h. Full-Service Restaurant License Fees:
(1) As required by State law, the license fee charged for full-service on-sale
restaurant licenses shall be a minimum of one dollar for each person residing
within the city as measured by the last preceding decennial federal census.
13
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
(2) The license fee shall be initially established by Resolution within ninety (90) days
of the initial adoption of this ordinance. Subsequent changes in the license fee
shall not be made for a period of ten (10) years from the effective date of
adoption of this ordinance unless a population growth is reported by the Federal
decennial census requires an increase in the fee.
i. Establishment of Price of New Full-Service Restaurant On-Sale License:
(1) In accordance with State law, the price of a new full-service restaurant license
shall be established by Resolution of the City at or above the current fair market
value of the license.
(2) The minimum price for a new full-service restaurant on-sale license shall not be
less than one dollar for each person residing within the City of Brookings as
measured by the last preceding decennial federal census.
j. Registry of Full-Service Restaurant On-sale Licensees:
The city shall maintain a registry of each full-service on-sale restaurant license
that is being offered for sale and the city shall furnish a copy of the registry to
anyone who requests a new-full service restaurant on-sale license. The existing
full-service restaurant on-sale licensee is responsible for registering with the city
that the full-service restaurant on-sale license is for sale.
k. Issuance of new Full-Service Restaurant Licenses restricted:
The city may only issue a new license pursuant to this ordinance if no on-sale
license is on the registry or a person desiring to purchase an on-sale license
listed on the registry provides documentation showing that the person is unable
to purchase the on-sale license at the price established in section i of this
ordinance and on terms satisfactory to both the potential buyer and seller. The
price of any on-sale license registered as “for sale” with the city shall be sold at
the current fair market price set by the city pursuant to a Resolution adopted in
accordance with section i of this ordinance.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
14
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
AN ACT
ENTITLED, An Act to allow municipalities and counties to issue additional on-sale
alcoholic beverage licenses.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 35-4 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as
follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 35-4-11 or 35-4-11.1 or the on-sale license fees
established pursuant to subdivisions 35-4-2(4) and (6), the governing board of any incorporated
municipality or the board of county commissioners of any county may, by ordinance, issue
additional on-sale licenses for full-service restaurants if the municipality or county charges at
least the minimum fee required by section 7 of this Act.
Section 2. Terms used in this Act mean:
(1) "Bar," any permanently installed counter within the restaurant area from which
alcoholic beverages are regularly served to customers by a person who is tending bar or
drawing or mixing alcoholic beverages;
(2) "Full-service restaurant," any restaurant at which a waiter or waitress delivers
food and drink offered from a printed food menu to patrons at tables, booths, or the bar. Any
restaurant that only serves fry orders or food and victuals such as sandwiches, hamburgers, or
salads is not a full-service restaurant;
(3) "Restaurant," any area in a building maintained, advertised, and held out to the
public as a place where individually priced meals are prepared and served primarily for
consumption in such area and where not more than forty percent of the gross revenue of the
restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages. The restaurant shall have a
dining room or rooms, a kitchen, and the number and kinds of employees necessary for the
preparing, cooking, and serving of meals.
Section 3. An applicant for a full-service restaurant on-sale license shall provide sufficient
documentation to the municipality to prove that the primary source of revenue from the
operation of the restaurant will be derived from the sale of prepared food and nonalcoholic
beverages and not from the sale of alcoholic beverages. The supporting documentation
concerning the primary source of revenue submitted pursuant to this section is confidential.
Section 4. When the municipality is renewing a full-service restaurant on-sale license, the
municipality shall condition the license renewal upon receiving documentation that not more
than forty percent of gross sales from the preceding twelve months operation of the full-service
restaurant is derived from the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages. The full-service restaurant
on-sale licensee shall submit an annual report to the municipality on the sales for the full-service
restaurant that includes an oath verifying the validity of the information provided in the report.
The report and the supporting documentation submitted pursuant to this section are
confidential. The report shall contain the annual gross sales of the licensee for the following two
15
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
categories:
(1) Food and nonalcoholic beverage sales; and
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales.
Section 5. A full-service restaurant on-sale licensee may only serve alcoholic beverages for
on-premise consumption in the bar and dining room area of the restaurant.
Section 6. A restaurant that has a full-service restaurant on-sale license may only be
advertised or held out to the public as primarily a food eating establishment. No licensee that
has a full-service restaurant on-sale license may allow smoking on the licensed premises.
Section 7. That chapter 35-4 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as
follows:
Any municipality or county adopting the ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this Act may
issue additional on-sale licenses to full-service restaurants. Any municipality adopting such
ordinance shall charge at least one dollar for each person residing within the municipality as
measured by the last preceding decennial federal census. Any county adopting such ordinance
shall charge at least one dollar for each person residing within the county but outside the
boundary of any municipality as measured by the last preceding decennial federal census.
Each municipality or county shall set the on-sale license fee within ninety days of adopting
the ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this Act or within thirty days after the resolution of any
appeal pursuant to section 3 of this Act. After the fee for an on-sale license issued pursuant to
this Act has been determined, no municipality or county may change the fee for a period of ten
years unless a growth in population reported by the federal decennial census requires an
increase in the fee.
Section 8. That chapter 35-4 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as
follows:
Each licensee who owns an on-sale license issued pursuant to subdivision 35-4-2(4) or (6) as
of January 1, 2008, and who purchased the license or had the license transferred to such
licensee at any time between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2008, shall report the amount
originally paid for the on-sale license to the municipality or county that issued the license. The
declared purchase price shall be made under oath and shall include the documents establishing
the amount paid for the on- sale license to the municipality or county that issued the license. If
the transaction for the purchase of the on-sale license included real or personal property, the
full market value of the real or personal property on the date of the original sale shall be
deducted from the total transaction price to determine the amount paid by the licensee for the
on-sale license. The burden of establishing the amount paid for the license shall be on the
licensee. Any licensee contesting the fair market value of the real and personal property may
appeal the valuation to circuit court.
16
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Section 9. Any municipality or county adopting the ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this
Act shall set the price of a new full-service restaurant on-sale license, pursuant to section 7 of
this Act, at or above the current fair market value. However, such full-service restaurant on-
sale license fee may not be less than the minimum on-sale license fee established pursuant to
subdivision 35-4-2(4) or (6). For purposes of this section, the term, current fair market value,
means the documented price of the on-sale license most recently sold between January 1, 2003,
and January 1, 2008, through an arm's-length transaction, less the value of any real or personal
property included in the transaction. Each on-sale license holder as of January 1, 2008, who
acquired the on-sale license within the last five years shall report to the municipality or county
the date and price paid for its on-sale license.
Section 10. Each municipality or county adopting an ordinance pursuant to section 1 of this
Act shall maintain a registry of each on-sale license that is being offered for sale at the price
established in section 9 of this Act and furnish a copy of the registry to anyone who requests a
new full-service restaurant on-sale license. The municipality or county may only issue a new
license pursuant to this Act if no on-sale license is on the registry or a person desiring to
purchase an on-sale license listed on the registry provides documentation showing that the
person is unable to purchase the on-sale license at the price established in section 9 of this Act
and on terms satisfactory to both the potential buyer and seller. The price of any on-sale
license registered as, for sale, with the municipality or county shall be sold at the current fair
market price set by the municipality or county pursuant to section 9 of this Act. Nothing in this
Act precludes the sale of an on-sale license by a licensee not listed on the registry.
Section 11. The existing on-sale license holder is responsible for registering with the
municipality or county that the on-sale license is for sale pursuant to section 10 of this Act.
An Act to allow municipalities and counties to issue additional on-sale alcoholic beverage
licenses.
=========================
I certify that the attached Act originated
in the
SENATE as Bill No. 126
____________________________
Secretary of the Senate
=========================
____________________________
President of the Senate
Attest:
____________________________
=========================
Received at this Executive Office this _____ day of
_____________ ,
20____ at ____________ M.
By _________________________
for the Governor
=========================
The attached Act is hereby approved this ________
17
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Secretary of the Senate
____________________________
Speaker of the House
Attest:
____________________________
Chief Clerk
Senate Bill No. 126
File No. ____
Chapter No. ______
day of ______________ , A.D., 20___
____________________________
Governor
=========================
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
ss.
Office of the Secretary of State
Filed ____________ , 20___
at _________ o'clock __ M.
____________________________
Secretary of State
By _________________________
Asst. Secretary of State
18
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
3. 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. 37-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project.
D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-05STI, 32nd Avenue Street Project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Presentation of the Annual Mayor’s Awards for Historic Preservation.
6. Open Forum.
7. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
8. Ordinance No. 18-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 58-36 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To Fleeing From A Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
9. Ordinance No. 19-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 82-1 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings,
South Dakota And Pertaining To The Definition Of Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
10. Ordinance No. 20-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota. 82-253. Stop required upon approaching stopped emergency vehicle using signals.
2nd reading: May 27th
11. Ordinance No. 21-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota. 82-254. Yielding right-of-way to emergency vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency vehicle not to exercise
right-of-way arbitrarily.
2nd reading: May 27th
12. Ordinance No. 22-08, An Ordinance Amending Brookings Ordinance Section 82-302 And Pertaining To The
Requirement That Speed Of A Vehicle Be Reasonable Under The Existing Conditions.
2nd reading: May 27th
13. Ordinance No. 23-08, An Ordinance Revising Ordinance Section 82-563 And Pertaining To Prohibited Obstruction
Of Vehicle Windows In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
14. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle Windshield And Front Window
Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
15. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle Windshield Sun Screening
Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
16. Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting The Operation Of Improperly Repaired Or
Adjusted Vehicles In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for removal of graffiti in the city of
Brookings, South Dakota. (4/15 email from Steve)
2nd reading: May 27th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings/Public Hearings
18. Public Hearing and action on a house moving request from John and Ciara Bos to move a one-story, ranch style
house from Springfield, SD (Governor’s House) to Lot 1, Block 3, Esther Heights Addition, also known as 2006 David
Cove.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, roll call
Other Business.
19. Presentation on Liquor Store Financials by Bill Purrington. (Informational)
20. Executive Session for Marketing and Pricing Strategies.
21. Executive Session for Contractual Reasons.
22. Adjourn.
19
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
4. City Clerk Reports:
A. Upcoming Council Meetings
May 27th
5:00 pm Work Session
- City Council goals
- Report on ICSC Conference
- Revised policy on government access channel
- Community Health Promotion
- Hospital Campus Expansion Plans.
- Project Insight Reports (remaining reports & how to use information)
- LEED Project Certification – Motion from 4/29/08 Ryan Brunner
6:00 pm Action Meeting
- Consent Agenda
Agenda
Minutes
Action on various committee, commission and board volunteer appointments
(Airport Board, Swiftel Center Advisory Committee)
- Presentations:
Annual Mayor’s State of the City Message
- 1st readings:
- 2nd readings/public hearings:
Ordinance No. 18-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 58-36 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To Fleeing
From A Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Ordinance No. 19-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 82-1 Of The Code Of
Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To The
Definition Of Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Ordinance No. 20-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle
Operation In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. 82-253. Stop required upon
approaching stopped emergency vehicle using signals.
Ordinance No. 21-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle
Operation In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota. 82-254. Yielding right-of-
way to emergency vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency vehicle not to exercise
right-of-way arbitrarily.
Ordinance No. 22-08, An Ordinance Amending Brookings Ordinance Section
82-302 And Pertaining To The Requirement That Speed Of A Vehicle Be
Reasonable Under The Existing Conditions.
20
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 23-08, An Ordinance Revising Ordinance Section 82-563 And
Pertaining To Prohibited Obstruction Of Vehicle Windows In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield And Front Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota.
Ordinance No. 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain
Vehicle Windshield Sun Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota.
Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting The
Operation Of Improperly Repaired Or Adjusted Vehicles In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing
procedures for removal of graffiti in the city of Brookings, South Dakota.
- Action on a resolution in support of the Safe Route to School project
- (TABLED on 4/11/08 & 4/29/08) Action on Resolution No. 29-08, a resolution
authorizing the city manager to enter into a liquor operating agreement with BraVo’s on
a temporary basis until the new restaurant licenses are issued.
Action: MOTION TO REMOVE FROM TABLE
Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
June 10th
5:00 pm Work Session
- Report on financial liability & recommendations
- Other alcohol law changes
HB 1203- Sidewalk Sales
HB 1126- On/Off Sale Wine
HB 1269- Off Sale Malt & SD farm winery licenses
HB 1142 (“grocery store bill”)
- NLC Strategic Session Planning ( per recommendation by CM Tim Reed)
6:00 pm Action Meeting
- Consent:
agenda
minutes
- Deputy Mayor appointment
- 1st readings:
- 2nd readings / public hearings:
Public hearing and action on Malt Beverage Renewals
21
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
4B. Council Invites & Obligations
Date
Day
Event
Time
Location
May 12th
Monday
Chamber Luncheon
11:45 am
Day’s Inn
May 13th
Tuesday
Big Sioux Water Festival
9:45 am to 2 pm
May 13th
Tuesday
City Council
3:30 pm Pictures
4:00 pm Reception
5:00 pm CC
May 14th
Wednesday
Senior Day
Activity Center
1:30 pm
Activity Center
May 15th
Thursday
Special Olympics
Torch Run
3 pm
May 15th
Thursday
Special Olympics
Opening Ceremony
7:00 pm
Frost Arena
May 18-21
ICSC Conference
May 26th
Monday
Memorial Day
10:00 am
Swiftel Center
May 27th
Tuesday
Council Meeting
5:00 pm
May 29th
Thursday
Sioux Falls Tour
Mike Cooper
City Planner
1-5 pm
Sioux Falls
May 31st
Saturday
Wall Raising
Habitat
8:00 am
June 7th
Sunday
Habitat
Dedication Ceremony
1:00 pm
June 12th
Thursday
Tour de Kota
22
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
23
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future
discussion*.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting
only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is
required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is
required.
May 13, 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. 37-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project.
D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-05STI, 32nd Avenue Street Project.
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. Presentation of the Annual Mayor’s Awards for Historic Preservation.
6. Open Forum.
7. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
8. Ordinance No. 18-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 58-36 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To Fleeing From A Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
9. Ordinance No. 19-08, An Ordinance Amending Section 82-1 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of Brookings,
South Dakota And Pertaining To The Definition Of Police Officer In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
10. Ordinance No. 20-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota. 82-253. Stop required upon approaching stopped emergency vehicle using signals.
2nd reading: May 27th
11. Ordinance No. 21-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of Brookings, South
Dakota. 82-254. Yielding right-of-way to emergency vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency vehicle not to exercise
right-of-way arbitrarily.
2nd reading: May 27th
12. Ordinance No. 22-08, An Ordinance Amending Brookings Ordinance Section 82-302 And Pertaining To The
Requirement That Speed Of A Vehicle Be Reasonable Under The Existing Conditions.
2nd reading: May 27th
13. Ordinance No. 23-08, An Ordinance Revising Ordinance Section 82-563 And Pertaining To Prohibited Obstruction
Of Vehicle Windows In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
14. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle Windshield And Front Window
Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
15. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle Windshield Sun Screening
Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
16. Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting The Operation Of Improperly Repaired Or
Adjusted Vehicles In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for removal of graffiti in the city of
Brookings, South Dakota. (4/15 email from Steve)
2nd reading: May 27th
Ordinances – 2nd Reading / Public Hearing
18. Public hearing and action on a house moving request form John and Ciara Bos to more a one-story, ranch style house
from Springfield, SD (Governor’s House) to Lot 1, Block 3, Esther Heights Addition, also known as 2006 David Cove.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
19. Presentation on Liquor Store Financials by Bill Purrington. (Informational)
20. Executive Session for Marketing and Pricing Strategies.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
21. Executive Session for Contractual Reasons.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
22. Adjourn.
24
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Agenda.
B. Minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 37-08, a resolution awarding bids for
2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project.
D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding bids for
2008-05STI, 32nd Avenue Street Project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
25
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the City Council’s April 29, 2008 meeting is enclosed for council review and
action.
26
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Brookings City Council
April 29, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall
with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley,
Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, and Tom Bezdichek. Council Member Ginger Thomson
was absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, City Clerk Shari Thornes,
and Receptionist/Records Clerk Laurie Carruthers were also present. Laurie Carruthers clerked the
meeting.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Swiftel Center Expansion Plans - Swiftel Center Advisory Board.
Board members Rod Schaefer, Barb Telkamp and Deb Garbers were present to discuss the Swiftel
Center expansion plans with the Council. Board members Tom Coughlin and Matthew Nelson,
were absent.
Mayor Scott Munsterman stated the Swiftel Center Expansion Plan is part of the City Council’s 2008
Strategic Planning goal list. However, it is low on the list. In regards to the expansion plan, the
council has a desire to review the independent study, as well as the VenuWorks study, and listen to
the comments from the Advisory Board. The Swiftel Center’s Executive Director, Tom Richter,
explained that the expansion plan addresses the need for additional storage, office, and meeting
(convention) space, which are critical to the growth and future of the Swiftel Center. Private
developers are interested in adding a hotel to the expansion project. The first talk of the convention
center was April 1997.
Board member Barb Telkamp commented that the Shamrock is not the same as the Swiftel Center
expansion. This expansion would be able to accommodate large conferences which would include
break out rooms, banquets and meetings.
Council Member Bezdichek suggested if the hotel and convention center could be constructed with
private dollars, then the city would not be competing with private enterprise. Richter stated many
other communities have public/private partnerships which benefit them. He suggested the council
tour these facilities for examples of these partnerships.
Council Member Reed advised the public has commented the expansion plans would make the
Swiftel Center the same as the Shamrock, and the city would be in direct competition. Richter
replied that competition will happen. When cities move forward, it stimulates the economy and
other growth for the community.
Council Member Bartley suggested the Swiftel Center Advisory Board take charge with a consulting
firm to prepare a plan of action while working with City Manager Weldon.
Frank Kurtenbach, Daktronics, Inc., commented cooperation with the university is needed in
planning this expansion as the university could attract many conventions to Brookings. Rob
Peterson, SDSU Athletic Department, advised there is no facility in Brookings that can currently
accommodate the size of many of their events. If the convention center is built, the university will
be in full support.
27
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Mayor Munsterman stated that the next step is to find someone to do an analysis. The Swiftel
Center Advisory Board will work with Weldon on the validation study.
Annual Reports from City Volunteer Boards, Committees and Commissions. In compliance
with the City’s Governance and Ends Policies, each city volunteer board, commission and
committee has provided its 2007 annual report of activities to the City Council for informational
purposes. The annual reports were received from the Airport Board, Board of Adjustment, Board
of Appeals, Board of Health, Committee for People who have Disabilities, Historic Preservation
Commission, Human Rights Committee, Library Board, Park & Recreation Board, Planning
Commission, and Traffic Safety Committee. City Manager Weldon added the Transportation Board
would provide an update at the end of summer and would also be included in the 2008 Annual
Report.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. City Manager Weldon responded to questions pertaining to the action
items on the agenda. Weldon noted that Item 4D from the consent agenda should be deleted. The
Airport Manager advised that with the potential realignment of the runway there may be an
opportunity to utilize this property.
City Clerk Reports. Shari Thornes, City Clerk, provided a briefing on future agenda items and
upcoming invitations and obligations.
City Council Topics. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to add on a future
work session the review of LEED certification for municipal owned construction of city owned
buildings. All present voted yes, motion carried.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Munsterman made the following amendments to the Agenda: 1) Remove the
airport board appointment from the agenda; 2) Reschedule the public hearing and action on
Ordinance No. 15-08 to May 13, 2008; and 3) Remove Resolution 37-08 from the agenda. Council
Member Reed requested a change in order of the agenda, moving Item 12 (Shamrock Lease) before
Item 11 (BraVo’s liquor). A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to approve the consent
agenda as amended.
Discussion: Bartley asked what is rational for moving Item 8 to the May 13, 2008 agenda. Bartley questioned City
Attorney Britzman if it is common to move Ordinances after the notification has been published and people have come
to testify. Must a valid reason be given? Britzman replied that it is discretionary for the council; it can be decided on
a case by case basis. Bartley again requested the rational for moving the Item to the May 13, 2008 agenda. Mayor
Munsterman explained that the applicant had requested the change. Munsterman asked if anyone had spoken with
the applicant. City Clerk Thornes responded that she spoke with the owner, Dick Fergen, that morning and he stated
that he would be present at the council meeting to make the request that Item 8 be tabled until May 13, 2008.
Bartley made a motion to leave Ordinance No. 15-08 on the agenda and the council can make a motion to table the
Item at that time pending Fergen’s request and rational. Mayor Munsterman added that this amendment is
friendly.
A. Agenda as amended.
B. Action to approve April 15, 2008 City Council Minutes.
28
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
C. Action on various committee, commission and board volunteer appointments:
Human Rights Committee – Joel (Jay) Vargas (5/1/08-5/1/09); Park & Recreation Board –
Erik Dahl (5/1/08-5/1/13); Park & Recreation Board, High School Student – Rebecca
Anderson (5/1/08-5/1/09); Park & Recreation Board, College Student – Renae Kruetner
(5/1/08-5/1/09); Utility Board – Dave Peterson (5/1/08-5/1/13); Disability Committee –
Alan Davis (5/1/08-1/1/09)*filled unexpired term; Swiftel Center Advisory Board – Teri
Ronning (5/1/08-1/1/2011)*filled unexpired term; Traffic Safety Committee – Mike
Fossum (5/1/08 – 12/31/10)*filled unexpired term.
D. Resolution No. 37-08, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Brookings Declaring Certain Real Property as Surplus and Authorizing the
Sale of Such Property. REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Mayoral Proclamations:
Mayor Munsterman advised that the following Proclamations had been issued:
o April 25 Arbor Day
o May 2-3 VFW Buddy Poppy Days
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 15-08 – Conditional Use. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 15-08, an application for a conditional use to establish a drive-in food service on Lots 12 – 14,
Block 6, Original Plat Addition (425/427 Main Avenue). No comments were made. Mayor
Munsterman requested a motion to table this agenda item until May 13, 2008. A motion was made
by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to table Ordinance No. 15-08 until May 13, 2008.
Mayor Munsterman asked if it would not be debatable for May 13, 2008. Britzman replied that it
would be debatable if a specific date has been identified. Bartley requested an explanation for the
delay, other than the applicant’s request. Dick Fergen, owner, was not there to advise the reasoning.
Mayor Munsterman deducted the probable reason for the request was this issue calls for a super
majority vote to overturn the Planning Commission vote, and not all council members were present.
Munsterman would like to afford the applicant the opportunity to a full council. Bartley responded
that it would be difficult in the future for the council to take action on a lot of items if it needed the
full council to make a decision. Bartley advised that it would be a bad precedence to begin such a
practice of not voting on items unless the entire council was present.
ACTION: On the motion, Brunner, Munsterman, Reed voted yes; Bezdichek, Whaley and Bartley
voted no; motion to table failed.
A motion was made by Bartley and seconded by Reed to approve Ordinance 15-08. Discussion:
Bartley continued that the council has been presented with all kinds of data, pros and cons of the
request. Findings of fact have been received from the Planning Commission, Traffic Safety
Committee, Downtown Brookings, Inc. and the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission, all of
which deny this request; it is important that the council takes this advice. Bartley advised he will be
voting against the request.
Bezdichek spoke regarding the council’s reliance on the volunteer boards who dedicate much time
and effort in order to advise the council. Council members must also consider the best use of a
property in particular districts. Bezdichek does not believe that a council member would not
support a business. However, the council must also consider safety and what is best for the
29
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
downtown area. Bezdichek believes that it is not in the best interest of the downtown area to have a
drive-thru, and he will also vote against this item.
Reed added that the council wants businesses to do what they can and help the downtown area
grow. The council takes input from the boards, but it is for the council to decide the facts. Reed is
concerned with the businesses that have left Main Avenue and the empty spots remaining along
Main. There has not been quick infill. Sometimes the community will have a few pains when it tries
to do something different. Otherwise, lots will sit empty. Reed critically reviewed the safety issues
and looked at the business and land himself. It is not the best situation, but it is also not the worst
situation. He walked through looking at the sight lines. There are no sight lines on alleys which is a
major concern. The drive-in will not be as bad as an alley; there are further sight lines. After
balancing all the issues, Reed believes the council should move forward in order to give
opportunities to businesses downtown.
Whaley went through the alley several times to view the safety concerns. Trucks use the alleys for
deliveries. She also has concerns with backed up traffic on Fifth Street. If this ordinance is granted,
more drive-thrus will open on Main Avenue with current or future vacant lots. Whaley will be
voting against this ordinance. With the children’s museum and streetscape, Mr. Fergen can increase
his business by beautifying the vacant lot next to his building.
Brunner commented that his views are more in line with Reed’s regarding drive-thru food service.
In viewing the plan, there are things that can be done to work with safety issues. Nick’s will have
just as much stacking of traffic as Taco John’s or Arby’s. Brunner will be voting in favor of this
ordinance.
Bartley spoke about the recent alley encroachment issue with the city, and stated this is an
encroachment on an alley to be used for a private business. The council needs to recognize the fact
that cars are going to be stacked in the alley. He sees this as one of many reasons why this
ordinance should not pass.
Munsterman advised he would be in favor of the ordinance. He sees no compelling evidence to
deny the request to develop the property. There is a lot of perception about what it is going to be
like. There have been many drive-ins along Main Avenue. Munsterman is glad the ordinance is in
place, but the council needs to be willing to allow businesses to be creative.
Bartley replied there have been many drive-ins along Main Avenue, but they have gone away for a
reason; they did not work.
Bezdichek reminded the public that the City Manager has recommended an opposition to the
conditional use request based upon the recommendations of the advisory boards.
Munsterman ended by commenting that he is disappointed that the council did not allow Fergen’s
request to table this until May 13, 2008 so he could speak about the project.
ACTION: On the motion, Brunner, Munsterman, Reed voted yes; Bezdichek, Whaley and Bartley
voted no; motion failed.
30
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 16-08 – Conditional Use. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 16-08, an application for an amendment to a conditional use to establish four (4) additional
dwelling units in an apartment on a portion of Lot 18, and Lot 19, except the W85 feet of Lot 19,
College Addition (649 Faculty Drive). No public comments were made. A motion was made by
Brunner, seconded by Bartley, to approve Ordinance No. 16-08.
Discussion: Whaley voiced concern regarding the parking spaces. Planning and Zoning
Administrator Dan Hanson responded that the application for the conditional use was for a land use
change, so the applicants must comply with parking requirements or apply to the Board of
Adjustment.
ACTION: All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 17-08 – Sign Ordinance. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 17-08, amendments to the sign ordinance pertaining to electronic message signs. City Manager
Weldon restated the Ordinance and advised that this ordinance was a compromise between the
Planning Commission, Downtown Brookings, Inc. and the Historic Preservation Commission.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson advised that the main concerns from the Historic
Preservation Commission was the signs did not fit into the historic districts. Upon reviewing the
four districts in the city, it was pointed out a portion of the Central business district is not in the
historic district. This portion would be able to have electronic message signs. In the historic
district, electronic message signs would be prohibited for institutional uses in the residential zones,
but also for any commercial enterprise in the historic downtown.
Jim Morgan, President of Daktronics, Inc., questioned if schools were exempt from this ordinance.
Hanson clarified that schools are exempt in historic districts and within 150 feet from the historic
district. Morgan advised Daktronics’ position was that there is a place for electronic displays and
there is a place to not have electronic displays.
Tom Bozied asked if the historic district includes 6th Street west of Medary Avenue. Hanson
responded that for institutional uses, an electronic display sign would be prohibited within 150 feet
from this area. Bozied questioned if this area was commercialized, would an electronic message sign
be permitted. Hanson confirmed that would be permitted.
Morgan asked if an electronic message sign would be permitted at the future children’s museum; and
if it would be an institutional use. Hanson advised that it would not be categorized as an
institutional use. The children’s museum is in a residential district, so there would be significant
restrictions. Morgan asked if there were any exceptions to this ordinance. Hanson replied that
zoning ordinances are never static; they are always dynamic and certainly can be modified and
changed. This ordinance was appropriate given the information that has been reviewed. As
electronic message signs evolve, so will the ordinances.
Garner Hanson questioned if light emitting diode (LED) signs would be prohibited in a downtown
business window. Dan Hanson responded that electronic message signs are categorized by different
characteristics. If the sign fits within a certain category, it will either be permitted or not. If the sign
can be seen by the motoring public and has motion, it would not be permitted.
Hearing closed.
31
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Bartley, to approve Ordinance No. 16-08.
Discussion: Reed commented that this is a good compromise, and we will have to continue working
with these issues in the future as technology advances. Weldon questioned if size dimensions were
built into this ordinance. Hanson confirmed that a maximum limit is addressed in the ordinance.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
Lease Agreement – the Shamrock. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to enter
into a lease agreement with the Shamrock as a convention facility.
Discussion: City Attorney Britzman said the hurdle that we needed to clear was to determine what
procedure would be appropriate to establish it as a convention facility that was satisfactory with the
state and their interpretation. The lease agreement has been reviewed by the Secretary of Revenue,
who is in charge of the regulation of alcoholic beverages in the state. The Secretary has determined
that a lease agreement would be sufficient to establish, even though it is a privately owned business,
to establish it (the Shamrock) as a public facility. The parties to this lease would be the private
owner, the Shamrock, would lease the facility (to the city) for the purpose of establishing the public
convention facility. The lease that has been drafted contemplates that the Shamrock would maintain
or continue all obligations of operating the facility. The city would be a party for the purposes of
identifying this as a convention facility. The lease duration is rather limited, because this is intended
to be a temporary measure extending until we have the ability to issue the new restaurant alcoholic
beverage on-sale licenses. It is possibly a four to five month time period depending on when the
process is completed. Pursuant to the lease, the city would lay the groundwork for this to be
identified for that limited time period as a public convention hall to satisfy the state’s interpretation
of the legal requirement.
Munsterman reiterated that this is a temporary case-by-case basis which essentially builds a bridge
for the limited time period. Munsterman questioned if Britzman is certain that the Shamrock
qualifies under the new restaurant law.
Britzman replied that Senate Bill 126 is an entirely separate issue. He has done further study in the
last couple of weeks on SB 126. He said if the Shamrock has restaurant facilities (which we know
that they do), a printed menu, services through wait staff to serve the meal, a kitchen to cook the
meals, a dining room facility in which to consume the meals and serve the public, those are the basic
requirements for a facility to qualify under SB 126. SB 126 does not go much beyond that and has
covered the points that are required. They have to meet other requirements that are non-facility
based in terms of the no smoking requirement, but beyond that it’s about the sum and substance of
the requirements. Britzman said he would assume that their facility would qualify. The facility itself,
for the purposes of serving the alcoholic beverages, would be confined to the dining room area
where the food is consumed. That may be a somewhat more limited area than their entire premises.
That’s probably still yet to be determined, but from he sees, we know that they would probably meet
all the items that he’s mentioned tonight.
Munsterman asked Mr. Bailey from the Shamrock if he wanted to comment and if he was
comfortable with this arrangement.
Mike Bailey Sr., co-owner of the Shamrock, thanked the Council and said a lot of things have
happened in the last two weeks. He said it appears to him that we’re back where we were in
32
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
February when the council reopened the applications for the lone remaining liquor license. It
appears, based on the information that they’ve heard, there’s no guarantee that the restaurant
licenses are going to be available in Brookings in July. And based on a preliminary review by their
lawyer of the restaurant license, there is a definite question mark as to whether their facility (the
Shamrock) will qualify as a full service restaurant under SB 126, noting that SB 126 has its own
definition of full-service restaurant. He said it appears also that the event license, this motion, is
going to be challenged. So there’s some question when it comes to July, whether or not they’ll have
anything. Back to January and February, there was one license and four applications and one
applicant withdrew. SB 126 was not considered at that time. Their feeling is that the decision for
the sole remaining license should have been made at that point. The Shamrock has met or
exceeded all the city requirements that were set forth when the license application process was
reopened. He said they feel the last license should be awarded to the Shamrock or at the very least,
table things for everyone until these new restaurant licenses are sorted out.
Munsterman commented that has been mentioned before. Munsterman asked if Bailey had
conversations with our City Attorney regarding their feelings and what they had learned.
Bailey responded that no, they had not conversed with Britzman regarding what he had currently
stated. He did call the city attorney asking if there was anything they should do. They did receive a
preliminary draft of the lease agreement some time ago by email. Britzman told him there would be
some revisions but they hadn’t seen a second version. Britzman had advised him that there may be
some revisions after it had been circulated through the city but was uncertain if that was the Council
or other city offices. However, he didn’t receive a final agreement so they don’t have a final
opinion on the document.
Munsterman asked Mr. Bailey if he was understanding correctly, and asked be corrected if wrong,
that he’s really not in favor of what this motion is to enter into a lease agreement. Is that correct?
Bailey said that was correct. He said right now there are so many uncertainties involved; there’s a
50/50 chance or more that there won’t be a license available and we can’t afford to continue this
way and take that chance and find out that there is none available at all. He doesn’t know about
both the other applicants, but right now one applicant is definitely a restaurant by the 126 definition
and doesn’t know about the other one.
Weldon clarified the reference to circulating the draft lease agreement. He said the city needed to
perform internal checking regarding insurance provisions in the agreement. That’s all it was about.
Bailey said he had no problem it being circulated, but incorporating those comments or noting that
there were not changes to the first draft was not provided to him.
Weldon asked the City Attorney if the draft agreement in the packet was the final draft agreement
and if that was the final draft that Mr. Bailey had.
Weldon directed a comment to Mr. Bailey saying if his legal counsel was telling him that the
Shamrock doesn’t qualify for 126, then that eliminates a lot of discussion in the future about
whether or not their facility meets the state’s criteria.
Bailey responded that they would probably be a guinea pig for the law.
33
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Britzman responded that there was one additional provision to the agreement with respect to
property insurance, but said that is not very significant because the Shamrock would carry its own
property insurance for their facility.
Bailey concluded by respectfully requesting that they continue apply for the original, last remaining
liquor license the way it started out. Munsterman clarified he wants the city to withdraw this motion
that’s on the table now. Bailey said yes.
ACTION: Motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to table the Lease Agreement with the
Shamrock. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 29-08 – Liquor Operating Agreement: BraVo’s. Resolution No. 29-08, a
resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a liquor operating agreement with BraVo’s on a
temporary basis until the new restaurant licenses are issued was tabled on April 11, 2008. A motion
was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to remove Resolution No. 29-08 from the table. No
comments were made. All present voted no with the exception of Bartley; motion to remove
Resolution 29-08 from the table FAILED.
Munsterman commented that we need to get more answers in regards to what the law is really going
to provide and we probably will need direct conversations with the Department of Revenue on what
they will approve. Munsterman said he is sensing that the Council is not sure that they want to step
into this territory. He said we’re trying to build bridges, but we need to make sure we build a bridge
to something that is going to be viable and he thinks there are enough questions in our minds, that
we’re not sure that we’re “there.”
Britzman suggested moving to the next step of circulating the research that he’s done. He said he
was surprised that we haven’t seen anything from the Municipal League or others who are working
on the same topic statewide. But, he has done additional research and has prepared a memo that he
thinks is ready to circulate among the city attorneys. He said he will work hard to obtain feedback
from other people and deal with it. Having done that research, which consisted of reviewing all the
alcoholic beverage chapters and trying to connect each specific statute with this new SB 126 to see if
it clarifies or if it’s affected at all. He said he really thinks the number of issues out there is not going
to number more than a total of about ten questions that need to be resolved. He said he can’t see
that the definitions are that difficult to deal with. We’ve operated with less than complete picture or
complete interpretation of what the statutes have met for quite a few years and we’ve done our best
to determine them. For example, Sunday sales can only occur in restaurant facilities with prepared
meals. While it’s not 100% clear exactly what the statute has intended to include, we’ve be able to
work with it. He thinks similarly under SB 126, we’ll be able to get a consensus and he still has
confidence in that. He appreciates that there are some questions that are not resolved and he
understands that and doesn’t have all the answers at this point. But, we’ve got a working draft of
answers to those questions and we need to fortify that with some interpretations, whether we can
get it from the state as early as possible - that would be a goal, or other municipal attorneys would be
helpful.
Munsterman said in our case if we know for sure that the Shamrock qualifies; noting there’s
questionable doubt now with Mr. Bailey’s testimony, but if we know for sure that they qualify for a
restaurant license and the Department of Revenue tells us that they are and that they will approve
34
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
them for that license, that takes quite a bit of doubt away on what our next step. He appreciates
CM Reed’s changing the order on this so we can find that out first because that does make a
decision for our next decision or two that would occur.
Bartley stated once again we’ve taken unsubstantiated testimony that this license is not available for
the Shamrock. Bartley said Mr. Bailey produced no letter from his attorney questioning it this
evening, just his statement that his attorney is questioning it. We have no documentation to that
effect and yet we believed it and we stopped our process again. We believed it last week when Mr.
Bailey stated that this agreement wasn’t working for him, and yet we’ve continued to put it on our
agenda this evening and he didn’t even want this agreement and we tabled this agreement. We have
a license to issue. It’s an unrestricted operating agreement. We came to the conclusion after SB 126
passed that we would issue that operating agreement as a Council. We didn’t issue it. We got into
this argument about SB 126; it’s a separate issue. SB 126 is an absolutely separate issue. We’ve got a
lot of things to work through there, but it doesn’t stop the issuance of this license this evening and
we just killed it one more time based on what’s going to happen with 126. It really doesn’t matter
what happens with 126 as it relates to this issue. He asked Britzman if he’s completely wrong on
this issue, to please tell him. We were going to issue an operating agreement temporarily and take it
back and that issue was resolved. If the Baileys’ aren’t interested in a license under SB126, then let’s
have a vote, up or down, of whether the license goes to the three remaining candidates: Gonz
Productions, BraVo’s or the Shamrock, because apparently all three of them want that license.
BraVo’s is the only one that has agreed to give it back and take a restaurant operating agreement.
Gonz Productions says no, they want to keep that license as an unrestricted operating agreement.
The Shamrock is telling us that they don’t think they qualify. He said let’s have that debate and
move forward; it has nothing to do with 126 at this point and he’s disappointed that once again not
taking action.
Brunner asked, looking at 126, whether or not cities can allocate the new restaurant licenses if they
have other unrestricted licenses available. Also, how does that play into issuing a temporary license
and taking it back, because then we would then have one of those licenses available which would
mean we wouldn’t be able to issue one of the restricted restaurant licenses?
Britzman replied that this issue must be looked at from a local option perspective which means
while we have an operating agreement available, we should be able to issue restaurant licenses under
this new legislation without regard to whether or not we have a different class or different type of
operating agreement available. That would be his feeling. He cautioned that the Council should
confine any further comments to the direction on SB 126. He feels the new SB 126 on-sale
restaurant licenses are an entirely different category than our remaining operating agreement. He
sees them as being an additional new class of license and the fact that we have an operating
agreement would not limit us from issuing an on-sale restaurant license under SB 126. Even though
we still have it and may not choose to issue that operating agreement, because they are different.
The SB 126 rules that take into consideration whether or not you have licenses available would not
relate to an operating agreement. That’s the language and interpretation that he has reading the law.
Munsterman commented that one thing Britzman has mentioned last time was the thought that SB
126 referred to selling. In our case, we would be able to lease those restaurant licenses through an
operating agreement like we do now or is this a sale that has to occur because of this new restaurant
type license?
35
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Britzman said it’s the actual issuance of a license as he reads it and that was one of the issues he tried
to research in the last couple weeks. He doesn’t see it as subject to an operating agreement, so it
would not be in the same category as our operating agreements. This new legislation is another
layering of procedure. Even though it fits within the same chapter of the code, he sees it as an
entirely different type of license just like a retail malt beverage. We look at a retail malt beverage
license and that would not at all be the same as our operating agreements because just the nature of
those two are defined differently in the statute. There’s enough to distinguish this new SB 126
restaurant license from the operating agreement in the statutes, that he thinks they’re entirely
different and we wouldn’t be issuing these licenses and we’d be required if we authorize them and
we collect a fee, that we would not be running that license or controlling them pursuant to an
operating agreement because we would not hold that license under SB 126 unlike our current
structure. The statute contemplates issuing that license to another party and we do not issue our
licenses to another party under our current operating agreements. We merely authorize a manager
to use that license for us and to operate it under our rules and we certainly could be operating those
licenses ourselves. Of course, that’d be contrary to what’s been done for decades and decades, but
he thinks there’s a distinction.
Munsterman noted that he heard Britzman say that last time, that was probably where we might land
and knows we’ll probably have more discussion on it, but it does raise questions.
Bartley interjected, requesting to rise to a point of order that we’re discussing SB 126 and it’s not on
the agenda for the meeting for discussion and that should be held a work session. The Council was
talking about issuing a license. The discussion ended on that and that SB126 is not up for discussion
this evening and it’s not on the agenda.
Munsterman said it all wraps around the same thing. Britzman said it does, but his intent was to
limit his comments and probably extended beyond where he should have.
Mayor Munsterman said what the Council will do is put SB 126 on the work session for the
May 13th meeting. Brunner noted that it’s already listed for that meeting. Munsterman said
the Council will have a full discussion and go from there.
Reed said heading into tonight, he thought the council was going to be able to issue two licenses.
That was his goal. It’s a point of frustration to where he was afraid that the council would not make
the right decision. That’s what is really frustrating to him. There was the concept of having some
risk for the Shamrock for a few months and we did have BraVo’s say they would give that license
back and could make a decision at that point. So he thinks too, that it’s a little bit of coming to an
agreement of the parties and see if the Shamrock would be willing to make an agreement to go for a
short period of time knowing that the other one will be coming available, if we can set that up. He
knows that in the lease it says when that one becomes available and at that time we can make
another evaluation to see where the best place is for it. He feels that would be a good way of
proceeding when we do bring it back up; if the Council sets a definite date or something, because
BraVo’s agreed they would give it back and at that time then we can evaluate where the best place
is. Otherwise, he thinks we should just back up. He thinks that’s what is being asked, if we should
back up and give the license out – then it’s given out for good and it’s all over with and he doesn’t
think that’s the right option. He disappointed that the parties can’t come together and figure out the
best way of going is.
36
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Brunner suggested on May 13th, in addition to the restaurant liquor license process, he thinks the
Council should also discuss when we’re looking at selling these licenses maybe we’re better off to
privatize the entire system; it may be the way to go, to sell them We’ve done operating agreements
in the past and he asked if we could get some research done on whether or not that is still the best
system to use going forward or if we’re going to sell restaurant licenses, if we would open up for sale
all the licenses in town and no longer be in that business.
Britzman closed saying that we are moving forward in the research, but we probably having
concluded those agenda items need to move on.
Subsidy Policy. Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed to approve the Subsidy Policy.
Weldon provided an overview of the policy. All present voted yes; motion carried.
City of Brookings
Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability
Establishing what is to be done, for whom, at what cost, and
Executive Limitations to define unacceptable means
Financial Stability – Key Performance Area
Guideline H: Appropriation and Subsidy Policy & Guidelines
Purpose.
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and criteria regarding the allocation and
use of municipal subsidies within the City of Brookings. These guidelines shall be used in
processing and reviewing applications requesting municipal subsidy assistance. Protecting
the financial interest is of the City of Brookings is of the utmost importance, so it is the
intent of the city to provide a minimum amount of municipal subsidies, as well as other
incentives that the City may deem appropriate, for the shortest term required for the project
to proceed.
The City reserves the right to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account established policies, specific project criteria, and demand on city services in relation
to the potential benefits to be received from a proposed project.
Meeting policy guidelines or other criteria does not guarantee the award of municipal
subsidies. Furthermore, the approval or denial of one project is not intended to set
precedent for approval or denial of another project.
Whenever possible, it is the City’s intent to coordinate the use of municipal services with
other local governing bodies and taxing jurisdictions.
Objective of Municipal Subsidies.
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and
fostering a diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and
proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
37
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
To fulfill this commitment, the Brookings City Council will closely examine its goals and the
goals of its city departments to identify outcomes that will meet the standards as outlined in
the mission statement above.
The Council also recognizes that its support of programs and services outside the scope of
its city departments may be necessary to fulfill the commitment and achieve the desirable
quality of life for its citizens. As a matter of policy, the City of Brookings will consider
using municipal funds to assist in the following areas, but are not limited to, opportunities in
the areas of:
Affordable Housing
Arts & Culture
Youth Development
Diversity
Economic Development
Education & Literacy
Environment
Government Stewardship
Health
Parks, Recreation & Open Spaces
Partnerships
Preservation/ History
Safety
Transportation/Transit
The Brookings City Council may choose to annually allocate a specified funding amount for
a specific category, regardless of the number of applicants for that particular programming
area.
General Guidelines for the Allocation of Municipal Subsidies
The City of Brookings may allocate up to four (4) percent of the annual General Fund
expenditures to subsidize community needs and programs. The City’s current and projected
financial health and stability will be the key deciding factor in determining its ability to
provide funds to outside organizations.
In addition, the Council will consider a number of factors as defined in the City’s Funding
Application when making this decision. A key factor will be the applicant’s ability to
provide a service or outcome that improves the quality of life for the citizens of Brookings.
The applicant must also provide a “but for” analysis which demonstrates the need for public
assistance. Other factors include the applicant’s ability to become self-sustaining, the
duration of the funding commitment, and operating verses capital requests.
Municipal subsidy will not be used for projects that would place extraordinary demands on
city infrastructure and services.
Request for donations or subsidies from individuals, religious or political groups based out
of the City of Brookings will not be considered.
38
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Request for donations or subsidies from qualified organizations outside of the funding
timeline will not be considered.
General Guidelines for Subsidies
The Brookings City Council evaluates program-funding proposals on an annual basis for
funding in the following calendar year. The City’s fiscal year is January 1 to December 31.
Proposals must be submitted to the City Clerk in accordance with the budget cycle schedule
and proposal format outlined below. Requests may only be made during this period of time.
Completed applications must be received on or before June 1st of each given year.
Following, a review by the City Manager and Finance Manager, the application shall be
referred to the City Council for further consideration during the annual budget meetings.
Organizations applying for a donation or subsidy must submit a completed Application for
Funding along with a detailed description of the project; a preliminary site plan; the amount
requested; the duration of the funding request; the public purpose of the project; verifiable
funding sources and uses; and a “but for” analysis which demonstrates the need for public
assistance. Additional documents that may be required include the organization’s current
expense statement and budget, Board of Directors listing, current Annual Report, and all
other items specified in the City of Brookings Application for Funding.
Budget Hearing Process.
Brookings City Council budget meetings are held in the months of August and September.
All budget meetings are open to the public. Applicants may or may not be invited to make a
presentation on their funding proposal. Applicants are encouraged to attend all budget
meetings to remain informed during the process. Applicants should be prepared to answer
questions based on the application. Final action on the budget occurs at the last Council
meeting in September.
Brookings School District Subsidies
Appropriation of public funds can be set aside for specific purposes which promote the City
of Brookings mission and the local quality of life within the City of Brookings. Brookings
Municipal Utilities transfers funds each year to the General Fund as a means to keep city
property taxes at a low level for the citizens of Brookings. The City of Brookings may
annually appropriate not less than 13.5% up to 15% of the transfer from the Brookings
Municipal Utilities to the Brookings School District.
Economic Development/Promotions Subsidies
A subsidy from the 3rd B Fund shall meet the requirements of the SD State Statute 10-52-8*.
Funds will be appropriated from the 3rd B Fund to entities with the capacity to promote and
advertise the city, its facilities, attractions, and activities. In any fiscal year, the City may
require the unencumbered funds be returned to the City 3rd B Fund.
Subsidy Agreement and Reporting Requirements
The City of Brookings requires all recipients of municipal funds to enter into appropriate
agreements that identify the reason for the subsidy, the public purpose served by the
subsidy, subsidy payment schedule, final the specific performance measurements to be
39
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
attained, and final reporting on outcomes. Failure to provide final reporting of funds and all
other required reports will make applicant ineligible for future subsidies.
The City has established the policy that financial, service and program performance
measures be developed and used as an important component of decision making and
incorporated into governmental budgeting. The City encourages all departments to utilize
performance measures. At a minimum, performance measures should be used to report on
the outputs of each program and should be related to the objectives of each department.
The performance measurements should:
1. Be based on program objectives that tie to the City Council’s goals and program mission
or purpose;
2. Measure program results or accomplishments;
3. Provide for comparisons over time;
4. Measure efficiency and effectiveness;
5. Be reliable, verifiable and understandable;
6. Be reported internally and externally;
7. Be monitored and used in decision-making processes; and
8. Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can provide an efficient and
meaningful way to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of key programs.
All agreements and reports shall be timely prepared and filed with the City Clerk. Failure
to comply with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the requested
subsidy as well as fines, repayment requirements, and a determination that the organization is
ineligible for future municipal subsidies for a period of years.
* Applicable State Statute: 10-52-8. Additional tax on lodgings, alcoholic beverages,
prepared food, and admissions -- Purposes -- Conformance with state sales and use tax.
Notwithstanding the tax rate limitations of §10-52-2 or 10-52-2.1, any municipality may
impose an additional municipal non-ad valorem tax at the rate of one percent upon the gross
receipts of all leases or rentals of hotel, motel, campsites, or other lodging accommodations
within the municipality for periods of less than twenty-eight consecutive days, or sales of
alcoholic beverages as defined in §35-1-1, or establishments where the public is invited to
eat, dine, or purchase and carry out prepared food for immediate consumption, or ticket
sales or admissions to places of amusement, athletic, and cultural events, or any combination
thereof. The tax shall be levied for the purpose of land acquisition, architectural fees,
construction costs, payments for civic center, auditorium, or athletic facility buildings,
including the maintenance, staffing, and operations of such facilities and the promotion and
advertising of the city, its facilities, attractions, and activities. Such taxes shall conform in all
respects to the state sales and use tax on such items with the exception of the rate.
Update on retail development. Weldon stated he, Al Heuton, Executive Director of Brookings
Economic Development Corporation, Council Member Ginger Thomson and Jeff Weldon had a
conference call with a consultant that works with communities regarding outlet malls. They
discussed the possibility of building an outlet mall on the DOT property, which the city currently
holds an option upon. He stated the first phase would be a site visit. The consultant would then
prepare a report which identifies potential retailers that would be a good match for the community
40
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
and the regional market. Phase two would include face-to-face work and recruitment with
developers, potential retailers, and the city. The standard fee is $9,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses.
Motion was made by Reed and seconded by Brunner, to direct the City Manager, in consultation
with the BEDC Executive Director, to proceed in hiring a consultant for the retail development,
with a limit of $15,000.
Whaley advised the city has consulted before on this issue and wondered if this was the same
information. Munsterman answered this consultant is specific to outlet malls, and the previous
consultant provided information about what people of Brookings spend in retail. The outlet
consultant would provide a targeted market analysis if Brookings is a good candidate for an outlet
mall. Weldon added this consultant would not be the same as the previous studies, rather another
tool.
Bezdichek commented he would not be in support of this motion as he does not know if the city
got its money’s worth out of the Buxton report. If the city is going to spend $9,000, he would rather
have a revolving fund for downtown businesses to make cosmetic changes to their buildings after
the streetscape project is finished. He does not see the results in these studies, so he will be voting
against this motion.
Brunner stated he is in support of this motion. He feels it is a risk, but knows if the city does not
move forward, the chances with the DOT property are much less. He sees this information as
beneficial for development in general.
ACTION: On the motion, all voted yes with the exception of Bezdichek who voted no; motion
carried.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
41
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on Resolution No. 37-08, a resolution awarding
bids for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal Project.
This project is for the chip seal project of the 2008 construction area, which is located between 6th
Street and 8th Street South, and west of Medary Avenue and every street within this section will receive
a chip seal application. This is an annual project, where the contractor places applies oil and city-
furnished quartzite chips to the streets within the section. The City then sweeps up the excess chips a
few days afterward, which are placed in a stockpile for use in the following year. This practice allows
the City to recycle the chips as well as saving the City money by providing the chips for the following
year’s project.
The plans for this project were mailed to 3 area contractors and 2 builders exchanges. The bid letting
was held on May 6, 2008 and the City received the following bids:
TopKote, Inc., Yankton, SD $183,900.00
The low base bid was approximately 15% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $216,000.00. The
project also included chip sealing the south two parking lots at the Swiftel Center, which is why the
engineer’s estimate was higher than the budgeted chip seal amount of $180,000. Excess funds after the
chip seal project is complete will be spent for additional quartzite chips that are purchased and hauled by
the Street Department. Recommend awarding the contract in the amount of $183,900.00 to TopKote,
Inc. of Yankton for the low bid of $183,900.00.
42
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Resolution No. 37–08
Resolution Awarding Bids on Project 2008-06STI
Chip Seal Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Project 2008-06STI Chip Seal Project
on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Project
2008-06STI Chip Seal Project:
TopKote, Inc., Yankton, SD $183,900.00
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of TopKote, Inc., Yankton, SD
for the low bid of $183,900.00 be accepted.
Passed and approved this 13th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
43
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding
bids for 2008-05STI, 32nd Avenue Street Project.
This project is for the construction of 32nd Avenue located in the Freeland Addition north of Highway
14 Bypass. The project includes storm sewer, grading, detention pond, gravel, curb & gutter and asphalt
paving. The project also included an alternate bid to place waste material that is left over from building
the street near the western side of Freeland Addition. The alternate bid price was for removal of waste
material from the site by having the contractor haul the material away, which would substitute the bid
price in the project for placing the waste material. The plans were mailed to several area contractors
and 2 builders exchanges. The bid letting was held on May 6, 2008 and the City received the following
bids:
BASE BID (32nd Avenue):
Bowes Construction, Brookings $451,905.60
ALTERNATE BID (Remove waste material):
Bowes Construction, Brookings $73,095.36
The low base bid was approximately 10% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $499,902.00. The
alternate bid for hauling away the waste material, at $73,095.36 was higher than the cost of placing the
waste material (cost of $44,806.05 included in the base bid), therefore, it is recommended to award the
base bid and reject the alternate bid. This project also is within the budgeted amount of $500,000 which
was recently adopted by the City Council. Constructing 32nd Avenue also makes the parcels abutting
the new street more attractive for sale since the infrastructure would be in place. Recommend
awarding the contract in the amount of $451,905.60 for the low Base Bid, and rejecting the alternate bid
in the amount of 73,095.36.
44
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Resolution No. 38–08
Resolution Awarding Bids on Project 2008-05STI
32nd Avenue Street Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Project 2008-05STI 32nd Avenue
Street Project on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Project
2007-05STI 32nd Avenue & Prince Drive Street Project:
BASE BID (32nd Avenue):
Bowes Construction, Brookings $451,905.60
ALTERNATE BID (Remove waste material):
Bowes Construction, Brookings $73,095.36
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Bowes Construction, Inc. for
the Base Bid of $451,905.60 be accepted and that the Alternate Bid be rejected.
Passed and approved this 13th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
45
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Presentation of the Annual Mayor’s Awards for Historic
Preservation.
The Mayor’s Awards program began in 1986, to acknowledge property owners who save and
maintain historical properties within the City of Brookings. During Preservation Week or
Month each year, the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission in cooperation with the
Mayor’s Office, recognizes work which enhances properties at least 50 years of age. This year
the following five awards will be presented:
1) Neighborhood Revitalization
2) Overall Commercial Restoration
3) Overall Residential Restoration
4) Restoration of Unique Architectural Features
5) Individual Service to Historic Preservation
First Bank & Trust
Community Development Corporation
“Neighborhood Revitalization”
For Preservation of Historic Residences
For its efforts to preserve and restore, the First National Community Development
Corporation is receiving the "Preservation of Historic Residences" Mayor's Award.
Since 1992 the CDC has purchased and rehabilitated houses in deteriorating condition. Its
mission is to "acquire, renovate, and develop substandard residential real estate to its highest
and best use for low and moderate income individuals and prevent the decline and
deterioration of residential neighborhoods."
The emphasis is on providing restored homes for single family use. After renovation, the
property is preferably sold. However, the CDC also maintains some rental properties if that is
determined to be the best use or until a buyer is found.
In more recent years the Corporation has engaged in other projects such as the interim
purchase of the Domestic Abuse Shelter to provide time for the shelter to acquire financing.
Currently the CDC is selling lots south of town for low to moderate income housing. And its
reach has expanded beyond Brookings to include Brookings County as well.
The non-profit corporation has eleven board members headed by President Steve Chappell.
Chappell says, "The CDC is an effort to give back to the community. We want to clean up the
neighborhoods and encourage others to do the same. The goal is to break even but if we
sometimes lose a little, we're okay with that."
During its existence, Chappell says the CDC has renovated about 20 homes.
46
Wachovia Securities and Deb & Scott Dominiack
“Overall Commercial Restoration”
309 Fourth Street, Brookings, South Dakota
From Wall Street to Main Street, historic preservation looks good on any building. Just drive
around Brookings historical district and you’ll spot numerous examples of what careful
planning, attention to details and elbow grease can bring out in one of these structures. This
year the Brookings Historical Preservation Commission has nominated the AG Edwards /
Wachovia Securities building for the Mayor’s Award. The building is owned by Scott and Deb
Dominiack. The restoration of 309 4th Street (formally The Party Depot) is a fine example of
what a historical building can become. Extensive care was taken on internal restoration and
rehabilitation. Beautifully refurbished tin ceilings along with ornate fixtures are several of the
attractive features that give the interior of this building it delectable charm. What may catch
your eye as you drive by is the exterior rehabilitation that was done. From the street you can
see new windows and the return of roll-out tan and plum striped awnings that give the building
a striking look. Care was also taken to repair cracks in the plaster along the alley thus giving
this building a breath of fresh air and revitalization. Restoration and revitalization is becoming a
popular trend among downtown historical building owners and 309 4th Street is a shining
example of what can be done with hard work, planning and attention to revitalization.
David and Sara Kneip
“Overall Residential Restoration”
1218 Sixth Street, Brookings, South Dakota
As you drive down 6th street in Brookings, slow down and take a look at number 1218, one of
this year’s recipients of the Mayor’s Awards for Historic Preservation. Built in 1950, this
wonderful ranch-style home was designed by Floyd and Evelyn Poole, whom lived in the home
until 1973. Three other owners occupied the house for the next 31 years, and many of the
historical elements were preserved. David and Sara Kneip have owned the home since July 1st,
2004, and they have chosen to enhance the many unique features of this home, particularly the
front facade and entrance.
The Kneips have added a courtyard in keeping with this mid-century home. This entry provides
a private place to greet guests, and also has a water feature to mask traffic sounds. The original
cosata stone was removed in order to replace the picture window. After an extensive, but
futile search to find a replacement for the stone, they will recycle it by chipping it into smaller
pieces and utilizing it in a back yard landscaping project. Brookings mason Dick Anderson
helped the Kneips choose an Owens Corning cultured ledgestone product for the facing.
During the process, they also added foam insulation and a plywood covering to the facade,
giving the property further “green” benefits.
The aesthetics of the entrance are enhanced by iron gates which were custom created by
Dakota Service, Inc. The pillars were designed and built by Dick Anderson, and he took
particular care in keeping a 1950s feel to them. Light fixtures were custom made by Huborton
Forge and create a welcoming ambiance to the property. The color and texture of the stone
creates a visual focus and a beautiful contrast between the darker green color of the house and
the lighter stone entrance.
Landscaping for the front of the home is in process, and Keith Rounds of Rounds Construction
helped the couple locate the lighter colored field stones found deeper in the earth from Butch
Osbey's gravel pit. The final element to the landscaping will be a horseshoe shaped area of sod
as well period plantings that will be placed throughout the shaved wood areas.
The Kneips have made many efforts to preserve and update the interior of the home as well.
They plan to keep the original floor plan intact, and have multiple home improvement projects
finished or in process. They have done their homework concerning this wonderful home found
in the heart of Brookings, and have made a commitment to honoring the 1950's era as well as
creating a modern space that will be enjoyed for years to come.
George’s Pizza
“Restoration of Unique Architectural Features”
311 Main Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota
Since 1971, area residents have enjoyed wonderful food at George’s Restaurant, located at 311
Main Street, the original 1880s location of the Bank of Brookings.
You may have many fond memories of sharing time with family and friends over their delicious
pizza. Not only are owners and operators Yota and Spiros Theodosopoulus committed to
creating their famous pizza and Greek food, but they are also committed to the historic
preservation of the physical building that is home to George’s. Their efforts in renovating the
original leaded glass window on the facade of their building has earned them a well-deserved
Mayor’s Award for Historic Preservation.
Throughout the years, the Theodosopoulus family has refaced the front of the building a few
times, and with the latest effort they removed the leaded glass window, and it needed extensive
repair. As they pulled the window from the building, they received many comments on how
beautiful the window was, and they decided to look into renovating it.
After doing some initial research, they found help in Jerry and Judie Dewald, of Studio 66
Customed Design Stained Glass, in Watertown, SD. Jerry, also an instructor at SDSU, took a
look at the project, gave them an idea of the extent of the work, and began to give the window
new life.
The window consists of two halves, which are mirror images of one another. The right side of
the window had 19 out of the 56 leaded glass pieces missing, so Jerry had to map those out and
make them from scratch. As with any leaded glass piece 80-100 years old, the lead also needed
to be replaced, and Jerry set to work on that as well. He meticulously re-leaded the left side,
and replaced the missing pieces on the right, and reinforced the backside of the window with
steel rods. Midwest Glass of Brookings also got involved with the project by creating an
insulated glass panel that protects the window from the elements.
As you, your family and friends meet at George’s Pizza in downtown Brookings, take a quick
look upward. You will appreciate it that Yota and Spiros cared to preserve this beautiful glass
window that enhances the delightful facade of their building.
Stephen Van Buren
“Individual Service to Historic Preservation”
For the George & Evelyn Norby Collection
Receiving a Mayor’s Award for his work with the George and Evelyn Norby Historical
Collection is Stephen Van Buren, University Archivist and Special Collections Librarian for
South Dakota State University.
The George and Evelyn Norby Historical Collection contains a full run of the Brookings Register
(1890 – present) and the predecessor to the Register, the Brookings County Sentinel (1882 –
1890). In addition, over 50,000 images capture buildings and historic sites, people and events.
The Norbys also compiled database histories of businesses, homes, and public offices.
Telephone directories and farm directories dating back to the early 1900s, as well as ephemera
from local businesses, round out the collection.
The Norbys began the collection in 1965, when the Register was to demolish their old building.
They then began to document and collect other items of importance to regional history. Mr.
Norby wanted to ensure the collection would be appropriately cared for, and made
arrangements with South Dakota State University Archives. Shortly after George Norby died,
the collection was donated by the Norby children in September 2003.
Under Stephen Van Buren’s leadership, the collection was transferred to the SDSU Archives in
H. M. Briggs Library, no small feat when dealing with a century’s worth of newspapers and
collected materials. (Van Buren casually estimates the collection volume as one double horse
trailer plus six full loads in his Bronco, the “first large intake” handled by the Archives.)
Having met extensively with George Norby to discuss the collection, Van Buren thought he had
a pretty good idea of the collection’s content. But then 8,000+ images in the form of negatives
and prints were unexpectedly found in the Norby files, stored alongside newspaper clippings
and other documentation. Many of the images were showing signs of degradation hastened by
the acidity of the clippings. Processing these images to reduce further degradation became the
top priority.
On December 26, 2003, the collection suffered a close call when a stuck plumbing valve on the
third floor of the library caused water to pool into the basement storage room where the
collection was being kept while awaiting processing. Most of the images had been moved for
initial processing, but the entire newspaper collection and three file cabinets of records and
images were at risk. When the water was discovered by Van Buren, it was raining down
directly onto a pile of new archival supplies stored in this room. Splashing water and pooling
had begun to damage the newspapers. Emergency response procedures were undertaken, with
much of the library staff coming in to assist. Slightly wet newspapers were laid out to dry atop
acid-free paper towels. Newspapers that had suffered more damage were flash frozen in the
Meat Lab, and then brought back a bundle at a time to be thawed and dried in a closed room
with a dehumidifier running. Though some water damage was suffered as a result of the flood,
nothing from the collection had to be discarded.
To date, basic processing has been completed on 85% of the collection. All newspapers have
been microfilmed and processed to archival standards. The prompt microfilming of the
newspaper record has allowed public access to the content while minimizing direct handling of
the originals. Over 70 boxes of duplicate issues were transferred to the Brookings County
Museum in Volga. Over 9,300 images have been indexed; there remain thousands more, many
with scant identification. Searchable PDFs available online serve as an aid to navigate through
the collection’s components. A few resources, such as the databases on business and home
histories arranged by address, are available online as PDF files as well.
Van Buren’s contribution has been vital, coordinating staff, student interns, and volunteer
efforts; processing the collection; securing funding for supplies and labor. Expenses have run
~$50,000 thus far, with annual costs reaching ~$10,000 during the initial intake and processing.
Van Buren notes that annual expenses for a collection of this size run about $2,500 “just to sit
on the shelf,” and will go up as priority projects – digitizing, indexing, and continued processing
of the negatives – resume.
George and Evelyn Norby did an “incredible job for the community” in amassing their
collection, which has become the anchor of the Archives’ Regional Collections, says Van Buren.
In overseeing the collection conserved and made accessible to the public, Stephen Van Buren
has further enhanced this remarkable resource for Brookings’ regional history.
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
6. 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.
7. SDSU REPORT.
54
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
8. Ordinance No. 18-08, An Ordinance Amending Section
58-36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings,
South Dakota and pertaining to fleeing from a Police
Officer in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 58-36 is requested to be enacted to help define the term ‘Police
Officer’ to include every officer of the Brookings City Police Department, Brookings County
Sheriff’s Office, State Law Enforcement officers, and any South Dakota State University officer,
including student patrol officers.
55
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 18-08
An Ordinance Amending Section 58-36 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To Fleeing From A Police Officer In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS,
SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
I.
Sec. 58-36. Fleeing from a police officer.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully fail or refuse to stop, or to otherwise
flee when given a visual or audible signal to stop by a police officer.
(b) The signal given by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light or siren.
(c) The officer giving such signal shall be in uniform, prominently displaying their badge of
office.
(d) For purposes of this ordinance, the term Police Officer means every officer of the
Brookings Police Department, County and State law enforcement officers, and any
South Dakota State University officer, including student patrol officers.
II.
All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
56
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
9. Ordinance No. 19-08, An Ordinance Amending Section
82-1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings,
South Dakota and pertaining to the Definition of Police
Officer in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 82-1 is requested to be enacted to help define the term ‘Police
Officer’ to include every officer of the Brookings City Police Department, Brookings County
Sheriff’s Office, State Law Enforcement officers, and any South Dakota State University officer,
including student patrol officers.
57
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 19-08
An Ordinance Amending Section 82-1 Of The Code Of Ordinances Of The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota And Pertaining To The Definition Of Police Officer In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS,
SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
I.
Sec. 82-1. Definitions.
Police Officer means every officer of the Brookings Police Department, County and State
law enforcement officers, and any South Dakota State University officer, including student
patrol officers.
II.
All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
58
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
10. Ordinance No. 20-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic
Rules for Vehicle Operation in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota. 82-253. Stop required upon approaching
stopped emergency vehicle using signals.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 82-253 is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing
traffic violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this; however,
there are statutes under South Dakota Codified Law that does.
Currently if an officer issues a ticket for this violation, our procedure requires a mandatory
court appearance (with state charges). Enacting a city ordinance for this violation will give the
officer discretion in regards to making the violator appear in court or issuing a Power of
Attorney which allows the violator to pay the fine without appearing in court if they wish to do
so.
59
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 20-08
An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-253. Stop required upon approaching stopped emergency vehicle using signals.
Upon approaching from any direction any stopped authorized emergency vehicle making
use of an activated light bar or activated red visual signals, the driver of every other vehicle shall
come to a complete stop before reaching the stopped emergency vehicle and may, unless
otherwise directed, proceed with caution only after ascertaining that it is safe to do so, and
upon approaching from any direction any stopped vehicle making use of amber or yellow
warning lights, the driver of every other vehicle shall:
(1) If driving on a street or highway with two or more lanes traveling in the same
direction as the vehicle, merge into the lane farthest from the vehicle and proceed with caution,
unless otherwise directed; or
(2) If driving on a two lane street or highway, slow to a speed that is at least twenty
miles per hour less than the posted speed limit or five miles per hour when the speed limit is
posted at twenty miles per hour or less and proceed with caution, unless otherwise directed.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
60
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
11. Ordinance No. 21-08, An Ordinance Establishing Traffic
Rules for Vehicle Operation in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota. 82-254. Yielding right-of-way to
emergency vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency vehicle
not to exercise right-of-way arbitrarily.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 82-254 is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing
traffic violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this; however,
there are statutes under South Dakota Codified Law that does.
Currently if an officer issues a ticket for this violation, our procedure requires a mandatory
court appearance (with state charges). Enacting a city ordinance for this violation will give the
officer discretion in regards to making the violator appear in court or issuing a Power of
Attorney which allows the violator to pay the fine without appearing in court if they wish to do
so.
61
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 21-08
An Ordinance Establishing Traffic Rules For Vehicle Operation In The City Of
Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-254. Yielding right-of-way to emergency vehicles - Duty of driver of emergency
vehicle not to exercise right-of-way arbitrarily.
The driver of a vehicle upon a street or highway shall yield the right-of-way to police
and fire department vehicles and ambulances if they are operated upon official business and
their drivers give an audible signal by bell, siren, or whistle or visual signal by flashing, oscillating,
or rotating beams of red light or combinations of red, blue, white or yellow light visible one
hundred eighty degrees to the front of the vehicle. The provisions of this section do not relieve
the driver of a police, fire department vehicle, or ambulance from the duty to drive with due
regard for the safety of all persons using the street or highway nor does it protect the driver of
any such vehicle from the consequence of an arbitrary exercise of such right-of-way.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
62
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
12. Ordinance No. 22-08, An Ordinance amending Brookings
Ordinance Section 82-302 and pertaining to the
requirement that speed of a vehicle be reasonable under
the existing conditions.
2nd reading: May 27th
The amendment of Section 82-302 is requested to clarify the existing code. The existing
ordinance refers to “highway” when addressing the operation of a vehicle in the city. The
amended ordinance would be amended to read “street or highway” so an individual could not
contend the term highway did not include a city street.
63
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 22-08
An Ordinance Amending Brookings Ordinance Section 82-302 And Pertaining To The
Requirement That Speed Of A Vehicle Be Reasonable Under The Existing Conditions.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-302. Requirement that speed be reasonable and lawful under statutes.
It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a street or highway located in
this state at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing,
or at speeds in excess of those established by this article or established by the city.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
64
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
13. Ordinance No. 23-08, An Ordinance Revising Ordinance
Section 82-563 and Pertaining to Prohibited Obstruction
of Vehicle Windows in the City of Brookings, South
Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
The amendment of Section 82-563 is requested to clarify the existing code. The existing
Section 82-563 2 parts: ‘A’ and ‘B’. Part ‘A’ dealt with non-transparent material on windows
(which included signs, posters, and other nontransparent material), and Part ‘B’ dealt with frost,
snow, ice or dirt as obstructions.
This amendment would clarify that only windows which were obstructed by frost, snow, ice or
dirt is considered a prohibited obstruction of vehicle windows as per Section 82-563.
Ordinance Section 82-563 previously lumped everything pertaining to windshields together. By
enacting Ordinance No. 23-08, it will mirror the corresponding state statutes and categorize
the violations.
65
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 23-08
An Ordinance Revising Ordinance Section 82-563 And Pertaining To Prohibited
Obstruction Of Vehicle Windows In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
Sec. 82-563. Obstruction unlawful.
It shall be unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets in the city when the
windshield or side or rear windows of such vehicle are obstructed or covered with frost, snow,
ice or dirt so as to impair the normal vision through the windshield or windows.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
66
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
14. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle Windshield And Front
Window Obstructions in the City of Brookings, South
Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
The amendment of Section 82-563 and creating Section 82-568 is requested to clarify the
existing code. The existing ordinance addresses the application of one-way glass, adhesive film
or other glaze (window tinting) to the windshield or side windows adjacent to the operator’s
seat. This ordinance prohibits the application of these items to these windows which reduces
the light transmittance of such windows to the combined level below thirty-five percent, with
an enforcement tolerance of nine percent. The information in this ordinance mirrors the state
statute for this violation.
Ordinance Section 82-563 previously lumped everything pertaining to windshields together. By
enacting Ordinance No. 24-08, it will mirror the corresponding state statutes and categorize
the violations.
67
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 24-08
An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle Windshield And Front
Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-568. One-way glass, adhesive film, or other glaze in windshield or front side
windows prohibited.
No motor vehicle required to be registered in the State and which is operated on the
streets or highways of the city may be equipped with one-way glass or any adhesive film or
other glaze or application on or in the front windshield, side wing vents, or side windows on
either side forward of or adjacent to the operator's seat, which reduces the light transmittance
of such windows to the combined level below thirty-five percent, with an enforcement
tolerance of nine percent.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
68
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
15. Ordinance No. 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle Windshield Sun
Screening Devices in the City of Brookings, South
Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
The amendment of Section 82-563 and creating Section 82-569 is requested to clarify the
existing code. The existing ordinance addresses sun screening devices affixed to the front
windshield. This ordinance would prohibit these devices to be placed or affixed to a windshield
as to obstruct or reduce the driver’s clear view through the windshield and prohibits film to
extend downward beyond the AS-1 line or more that the lowest point of the sun visor of the
motor vehicle. The information in this ordinance mirrors the state statute for this violation.
Ordinance Section 82-563 previously lumped everything pertaining to windshields together. By
enacting Ordinance No. 25-08, it will mirror the corresponding state statutes and categorize
the violations.
69
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 25-08
An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle Windshield Sun
Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-569. Restrictions on sun screening devices on windshield.
It shall be unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on the public streets of the city with a
sun screening device placed on or affixed to a windshield so as to obstruct or reduce the
driver's clear view through the windshield, and no film may be extended downward beyond the
AS-1 line or more than the lowest point of the sun visor of the motor vehicle.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
70
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
16. Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations Prohibiting the Operation of Improperly
Repaired or Adjusted Vehicles in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 82-570 is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing
traffic violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this; however,
there are statutes under South Dakota Codified Law that does.
Currently if an officer issues a ticket for this violation, our procedure requires a mandatory
court appearance (with state charges). Enacting a city ordinance for this violation will give the
officer discretion in regards to making the violator appear in court or issuing a Power of
Attorney which allows the violator to pay the fine without appearing in court if they wish to do
so.
71
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinance No. 26-08
An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting The Operation Of Improperly
Repaired Or Adjusted Vehicles In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
82-570. Operation of improperly repaired or adjusted vehicle prohibited.
No person shall drive or move on any street or highway of the city any motor vehicle,
unless the equipment upon the vehicle is in good working order and adjustment and the vehicle
is in such safe mechanical condition as not to endanger the driver or other occupant or any
person upon the street or highway.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
72
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti
and establishing procedures for removal of graffiti in the
City of Brookings, South Dakota.
2nd reading: May 27th
This amendment of Section 58-240, is requested to be enacted to assist the officers and
community to help prevent the spread of Graffiti. If Graffiti is not removed from a private or
public building and remains visible, the property becomes a target for more Graffiti. We are
requesting that the property owner or the person in charge of the property remove the
graffiti within 10 days after receiving a notice of the defacement.
73
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
ORDINANCE NO. 27-08
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING GRAFFITI AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES
FOR REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI IN THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA.
BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
I.
CHAPTER 58, ARTICLE IX. OFFENSES INVOLVING GRAFFITI
SECTION 58-240. Purpose and Intent.
The city council is enacting this ordinance to help prevent the spread of graffiti vandalism
and to establish a program for the removal of graffiti from public and private property. The city
council is authorized to enact this ordinance pursuant to its police powers, which authorize the
city, under certain circumstances, to provide for the removal of graffiti from private and public
property.
The city council finds that graffiti is a public nuisance and destructive of the rights and
values of property owners as well as the entire community. Unless the city acts to remove graffiti
from public and private property, the graffiti tends to remain. Other properties then become the
target of graffiti, and entire neighborhoods are affected and become less desirable places in which
to be, all to the detriment of the city.
The city council intends, through the adoption of this ordinance, to provide additional
enforcement tools to protect public and private property from acts of graffiti vandalism and
defacement.
SECTION 58-241. Definitions.
Graffiti means any unauthorized inscription, word, figure, painting or other defacement
that is written, marked, etched, scratched, sprayed, drawn, painted, or engraved on or otherwise
affixed to any surface of public or private property by any graffiti implement, to the extent that
the graffiti was not authorized in advance by the owner or occupant of the property, or, despite
advance authorization, is otherwise deemed a public nuisance by the city council.
SECTION 58-242. Prohibited Acts.
(a) Defacement. It shall be unlawful for any person to apply graffiti to any natural or man-
made surface on any city-owned property or, without the permission of the owner or occupant,
on any non-city owned property.
SECTION 58-243. Graffiti as Nuisance.
74
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
(a) The existence of graffiti on public or private property in violation of this ordinance is
expressly declared to be a public nuisance and, therefore, is subject to the removal and
abatement provisions specified in this ordinance as well as any other law which permits
abatement of a public nuisance.
(b) It is the duty of both the owner of the property to which the graffiti has been applied
and any person who may be in possession or who has the right to possess such property to at all
times keep the property clear of graffiti.
SECTION 58-244. Removal of Graffiti by Perpetrator.
Any person applying graffiti on public or private property shall have the duty to remove
the graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours after notice by the city or private owner of the property
involved. Such removal shall be done in a manner prescribed by the Chief of Police, or the
designee of the Chief of Police or other city building official. Any person applying graffiti shall be
responsible for the removal or for the payment of the removal. Failure of any person to remove
graffiti or pay for the removal shall constitute an additional violation of this ordinance. Where
graffiti is applied by an unemancipated minor, the parents or legal guardian shall also be
responsible for such removal or for the payment for the removal.
SECTION 58-245. Removal of Graffiti by Property Owner or City.
If graffiti is not removed by the perpetrator according to section 58-244, graffiti shall be
removed pursuant to the following provisions:
(a) Property Owner Responsibility. It is unlawful for any person who is the owner or who has
primary responsibility for control of property or for repair or maintenance of property in the city
to permit property that is defaced with graffiti to remain defaced for a period of ten (10) days
after service by first class mail of notice of the defacement. The notice shall contain the following
information:
(1) The street address or legal description of the property sufficient for identification
of the property;
(2) A statement that the property is a potential graffiti nuisance property with a
concise description of the conditions leading to the finding;
(3) A statement that the graffiti must be removed within ten (10) days after receipt of
the notice and that if the graffiti is not abated within that time the city will declare the property to
be a public nuisance, subject to the nuisance abatement procedures provided in city ordinance
Chapter 43, Article IV (Nuisances and Offensive conditions); and
(4) An information sheet identifying any graffiti removal assistance programs available
through the city and private graffiti removal contractors.
(b) Exceptions to Property Owner Responsibility. The removal requirements of subsection (a)
above shall not apply if the property owner or responsible party can demonstrate that:
75
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
(1) The property owner or responsible party lacks the financial ability to remove the
defacing graffiti; or
(2) The property owner or responsible party has an active program for the removal of
graffiti and has scheduled the removal of the graffiti as part of that program, in which case it shall
be unlawful to permit such property to remain defaced with graffiti for a period of fifteen (15)
days after service by first class mail of notice of the defacement.
(c) Right of City to Remove.
(1) Use of Public Funds. Whenever the city becomes aware or is notified and
determines that graffiti is located on publicly or privately owned property viewable from a public
or quasi-public place, the city shall be authorized to use public funds for the removal of the
graffiti, or for the painting or repairing of the graffiti, but shall not authorize or undertake to
provide for the painting or repair of any more extensive an area than that where the graffiti is
located, unless the city manager, or the designee of the city manager, determines in writing that a
more extensive area is required to be repainted or repaired in order to avoid an aesthetic
disfigurement to the neighborhood or community, or unless the property owner or responsible
party agrees to pay for the costs of repainting or repairing the more extensive area.
(2) Right of Entry on Private Property. Prior to entering upon private property or
property owned by a public entity other than the city for the purpose of graffiti removal, the city
shall attempt to secure the consent of the property owner or responsible party and a release of
the city from liability for property damage or personal injury. If the property owner or
responsible party fails to remove the offending graffiti within the time specified by this ordinance,
or if the city has requested consent to remove or paint over the offending graffiti and the
property owner or responsible party has refused consent for entry on terms acceptable to the
city and consistent with the terms of this section, the city shall commence abatement and cost
recovery proceedings for the graffiti removal according to state law as city ordinances which
provide further abatement procedures.
SECTION 58-246. Severability.
Severability is intended throughout and within the provisions of the ordinance. If any
section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then that decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: May 13, 2008
SECOND READING:
PUBLISHED:
76
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
18. Public hearing and action on a house moving request
from John and Ciara Bos to move a one-story, ranch style
house from Springfield, SD (Governor’s House) to Lot 1,
Block 3, Esther Heights Addition, also known as 2006
David Cove.
Applicant: John and Ciara Bos
Proposal: The Esther Heights Addition is in the Residence R-1B District. This subdivision
contains site-built homes, manufactured homes, and moved-in homes. There is a wide range of
architectural styles, and the homes range in age from new to over 80 years old.
Specifics: The house to be moved is a “Governor’s House” that is constructed at the
Springfield Prison. The applicant plans to install a basement and add an attached two-stall
garage. A future garage stall may also be completed. The site plan conforms the building
setback requirements.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
77
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Other Business.
19. Presentation on Municipal Liquor Store Financials by Bill
Purrington.
Brookings Liquor Store
Year-End Report 2007
2007 was the first full year that we operated out of our new store in the Brookings Mall. In
2007 total sales increased by $361,311 which was a 12.77 % increase over 2006. The net retail
profit for the year was $133,488.
The attached financial statement lists the various categories of gross and net sales. The second
grouping of numbers is the cost of goods section for each category. Cost of goods is figured by
adding the yearly purchases to the beginning yearly inventory and subtracting the ending yearly
inventory. The cost of goods for each category is subtracted from the net sales amount to
arrive at gross profit.
The operating expense section lists current expenses, personnel expenses, capital costs under
$5,000 and depreciation expense. .
Under non-operating revenue we made $8,854 in interest and $5,200 in rent to Hy-Vee.
Obviously, we want the net profit to be more than $105,292. Because we are leasing our space
and because our facility is larger than the old store our expenses are higher. I believe that the
best way to assess how our store is doing is to compare our performance in 2007 to our
performance in 2005 which was the last year we operated in the old store. Our current and
personnel expenses were $181,668 higher in 2007 than 2005. However, we didn’t make
$181,668 less in 2007 than we did in 2005. We made $92,933 less than we did in 2005. By
increasing our sales we were able to offset $88,735 in these extra expenses. By the end of
2008 we will have offset nearly all the increased expenses it takes to operate this store. I
believe that this year our net profit will be approximately $170,000. In 2005 our net retail
profit was $198,255.
The main increased expenses in 2007 were a lease payment of $74,466.84, an increase in
personnel costs of $37,852 and an increase in our credit card processing fee of $16,082.98 (this
is directly related to our increase in sales and the increase in credit card usage) and an increase
in depreciation of $30,134. Surprisingly, our electric and natural gas costs only increased $6231
from 2005 levels. I think the main reason for this is that the cooling units for the beer cooler
are much more efficient than the ones in our old building. The personnel costs were higher for
two reasons. Our full-time employees received a yearly raise and we spent over $18,000 more
for part-time help. The reason our part-time hours went up is that we had a great deal of work
to do to finish the store. We had several extra people on duty nearly everyday doing tasks
associated with finishing the store.
86
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
I believe that our current expenses will go up slightly in 2008 but that personnel expenses will
decrease. The reasons for this are that we will have eliminated the Assistant Manager position
which will save us $10,000 per year, one of our full-time staff has just resigned and we do not
expect to replace that person until this fall if at all. The hours worked by that full-time person
will be worked by part-time employees as a much lower rate of pay. In total I am projecting
that total expenses in 2008 will be very close to the 2007 amount.
I have prepared spreadsheets with different sales increase scenarios to illustrate our store’s
potential sales and net profit growth. The projections increases that I used are 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%
and a straight $300,000 increase per year. For 2008 only I decreased the personnel costs by
$20,000, because of the aforementioned reasons, but increased current expenses by 3%. I
increased personnel and current expenses by 3% each year thereafter.
Each spreadsheet shows the sales with the applicable increase applied. Be advised that the
expenses and net profits used in these examples are all calculated without
considering depreciation expense. Since I have no control over depreciation
expenses my intent is to illustrate the profitability of the retail operation by using
out-of-pocket expenses which I have some control over. Gross profit is calculated by
multiplying the gross profit percentage by the sales (for purposes of these spreadsheets I used
the 2007 gross profit % figure throughout). The current expenses and personnel expenses are
listed under the gross profit and the net profit is calculated by subtracting the two expense
figures from the gross profit. The final line shows the earnings ratio which is calculated by
dividing the net profit by the sales.
As you can see, the gross profit increases each year because sales and the resulting gross profit
increase faster than the expenses increase.
I believe that the 8% scenario in the short term is the most plausible scenario. In fact, the sales
for 2008 are a little understated because I estimate that we will increase our sales by
approximately $300,000 this year. If we do increase our sales by $300,000 in 2008 we will net
another $10,000.
Because I believe the 8% scenario is the most plausible I will cite some high points of this
spreadsheet. In 2008 the net profit is projected at $199,323 which is an increase of $65,835.
In 2011, which will be our fifth full year at this location, my projections are sales of $4,338,503,
a gross margin of $878,113 and a net profit of $334,206 which is an increase of $200,718 from
2007. The earnings ratio in 2011 is 7.70 which is getting very close to our goal of 8%.
The second five years of this projection show an even more pronounced increase. In year 2016
the sales are $6,374,684, which is double our 2007 sales (when I started as manager in 1984
our sales were $1,400,000. In 2006 are sales were over $2,800,000 which means that it took
us 22 years to double our sales at the old store), the gross margin is $1,290,236 and the net
profit is $659,699. The resulting earnings ratio is 10.35 %. I believe that sometime between
2016 and 2021 our net retail profit will exceed the net override profit. If the net override
87
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
profit continues to increase at its present pace the total net profit of the retail and the override
operations will exceed $1,300,000. The total of these two operations in 2007 was $503,795.
The last year of our lease, which is 2021, is even more impressive. Sales are $9,366,502, the
gross margin is $1,895,780 and the net profit is $1,164,815. The earnings ratio is 12.44%.
In 2005 when I presented my case for moving the store I was absolutely convinced it was the
best course of action. The old store, in my opinion, was “spinning its wheels” because we were
out of space. We could not adequately display, store or restock our merchandise. We also
could not bring in many new products which is the present culture of the retail off-sale liquor
business. At our new store we have the room to increase our sales to the $9,000,000 level, as
projected in the 8% increase spreadsheet. At the old store we were maxed out. It would have
been very difficult to sell significantly more units of merchandise per year at the old store.
I believe that these spreadsheets illustrate our potential very well. It is not likely that we will
maintain an 8% increase per year for the next 14 years. By the same token I believe that our
increase will be more than 5% per year. My best estimate is that we will fall pretty close to the
7% increase scenario. Obviously, we will probably increase sales by different percentages every
year. The reason I estimate that we will increase our sales approximately 7% per year is that
we get an automatic increase of 2-3% per year because the cost of our products goes up each
year.
The financial figures from the first quarter of 2008 further illustrate my financial projections.
Our sales for the quarter increased by $63,303. We had a very good April which added to our
year-to-date increase. It is now $120,776 through April.
I believe that these spreadsheets show that our store has a very bright financial future. The
financial figures from the first quarter of 2008 illustrate this point. As our net profits grow, I
believe that we should start a building fund for the future. As we get closer to the tenth year
of our lease we should begin negotiating a new lease with the mall owners. If we are making
the kind of money my projections say we will, there would be no reason to move provided we
can negotiate a favorable lease. If we cannot negotiate a favorable lease we will have time to
purchase land, design and build a new store. If we are prepared to do this I believe we will
have some leverage during the negotiating process. When Hy-Vee negotiated their lease the
owners of the mall knew that they were very serious about other options and gave them a very
favorable lease rate.
Besides the financial benefits of our store there are other benefits to the community. We have
a large store that is very easy to shop in. Our customers like our selection and they also like
the fact that they aren’t so cramped in our store during our busy sales days. Also, in my
opinion, we are a destination stop and we need as many destination stops as possible in
Brookings in order to improve our overall retail business in Brookings. We have seen many
new customers in our store since we opened and we feel that we are doing a better job of
keeping more off-sale business in Brookings which is a priority of our both the Chamber of
Commerce and our City Council.
88
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
In summary, we had a good year in 2007. As I stated earlier the net profit was not as high as
we want it. However, if we are patient we will make up for the shortcomings in net profit in
the near term by gaining much larger increases in future years! We picked our present location
because we expected an increase in traffic which has proven to be true. Our customer count
in 2007 was almost 6000 more than in 2005. Thus, the benefits of being located next to Hy-
Vee and on the East side of town where there is much more retail activity has been very
apparent. These benefits will be even greater for us as time goes by.
89
BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ANNUAL REPORT
1st QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER TOTAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2008~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LIQUOR BEER
Sales 200,937 285,097 584,023 1,070,057
Less Discount/ Paid Out
Sales (Net)200,937 285,097 584,023 1,070,057
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)181,024 259,521 530,934 971,479
Total Cost of Sales 181,024 259,521 530,934 971,479
GROSS PROFIT 19,913 25,576 53,089 98,578
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs/ Retail 10,000
Total Expenses 10,000
NET OPERATING AGREEMENT INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS 88,578
net profit margin = net operating income/net sales 8.28%
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL TOTAL
LIQUOR WINE BEER LOTTERY MISC
Sales 367,112 197,394 168,460 7,333 33,243 773,542
Less Discount/ Paid Out (5,103) (4,766) - (1,400) (11,269)
Sales (Net)362,009 192,628 168,460 5,933 33,243 762,273
Cost of Sales:
Inventory January 1, (at cost)283,000 202,072 59,010 2,161 29,861 576,104
Purchases (net)260,557 135,249 128,468 5,146 17,957 547,377
Less Inventory March , (at cost)256,662 196,305 51,906 1,651 20,994 527,518
Total Cost of Sales 286,895 141,016 135,572 5,656 26,824 595,963
GROSS PROFIT 75,114 51,612 32,888 277 6,419 166,310
gross profit margin=gross profit/net sales 20.75%26.79%19.52%4.67%19.31%21.82%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Current Expenses 47,381
Personnel Costs/ Retail 89,569
Personnel Costs/ Operating and Malt (10,000)
Capital Costs Under $5000 2,848
Depreciation Expense 10,247
Total Expenses 140,045
Add Nonoperating Revenue
Interest -
Other Income -
Rent -
Total Other Income -
NET RETAIL INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER 26,265
3.45%
Operating Transfer Out To General Fund
BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ANNUAL REPORT
YEAR END FINANCIAL STATEMENT OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER TOTAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2007~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LIQUOR BEER
Sales 801425 1,119,605 2,844,279 4,765,308
Less Discount/ Paid Out
Sales (Net)801,425 1,119,605 2,844,279 4,765,308
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)722,024 1,019,753 2,585,045 4,326,822
Total Cost of Sales 722,024 1,019,753 2,585,045 4,326,822
GROSS PROFIT 79,401 99,851 259,234 438,486
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs/ Retail 40,000
Total Expenses 40,000
NET OPERATING AGREEMENT INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS 398,486
8.36%
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL TOTAL
LIQUOR WINE BEER LOTTERY MISC
Sales 1,515,168 836,003 725,542 30,340 132,431 3,239,485
Less Discount/ Paid Out -23,275 -20,746 -1 -6,532 -50,554
Sales (Net)1,491,892 815,257 725,541 23,808 132,431 3,188,930
Cost of Sales:
Inventory January 1, (at cost)317,495 198,907 47,364 1,765 27,148 592,679
Purchases (net)1,161,419 617,957 615,104 23,014 109,576 2,527,070
Less Inventory December 31, (at cost)283,000 202,072 59,010 2,161 29,861 576,104
Total Cost of Sales 1,195,914 614,792 603,459 22,618 106,862 2,543,645
GROSS PROFIT 295,978 200,465 122,082 1,190 25,569 645,285
19.84%24.59%16.83%5.00%19.31%20.24%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Current Expenses 192,566
Personnel Costs/ Retail 313,248
Personnel Costs/ Operating and Malt
Capital Costs Under $5000 5,983
Depreciation Expense 43,053
Total Expenses 554,850
Add Nonoperating Revenue
Interest 8,854
Other Income 803
Rent 5,200
Total Other Income 14,857
NET RETAIL INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER 105,292
3.30%
Operating Transfer Out To General Fund 670,000
(Transfer to GF includes sale of liquor store property in 2006 of $300,000)
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,348,375 $3,515,794 $3,691,584 $3,876,163
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $677,711 $711,597 $747,177 $784,535
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $133,489 $179,960 $198,913 $219,112 $240,629
Earnings Ratio 4.19 5.37 5.66 5.94 6.21
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$4,069,971 $4,273,470 $4,487,143 $4,711,501 $4,947,076
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $823,762 $864,950 $908,198 $953,608 $1,001,288
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $263,539 $287,920 $313,857 $341,436 $370,751
Earnings Ratio 6.48 6.74 6.99 7.25 7.49
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$5,194,429 $5,454,151 $5,726,858 $6,013,201 $6,313,861
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,051,352 $1,103,920 $1,159,116 $1,217,072 $1,277,926
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $401,900 $434,984 $470,112 $507,397 $546,961
Earnings Ratio 7.74 7.98 8.21 8.44 8.66
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,380,265 $3,583,081 $3,798,065 $4,025,949
Gross Profit 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $684,166 $725,216 $768,728 $814,852
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $133,489 $186,414 $212,532 $240,664 $270,946
Earnings Ratio 4.19 5.51 5.93 6.34 6.73
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$4,267,506 $4,523,557 $4,794,970 $5,082,668 $5,387,628
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $863,743 $915,568 $970,502 $1,028,732 $1,090,456
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $303,520 $338,538 $376,161 $416,561 $459,919
Earnings Ratio 7.11 7.48 7.84 8.20 8.54
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$5,710,886 $6,053,539 $6,416,752 $6,801,757 $7,209,862
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,155,883 $1,225,236 $1,298,751 $1,376,676 $1,459,276
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $506,431 $556,300 $609,746 $667,001 $728,311
Earnings Ratio 8.87 9.19 9.50 9.81 10.10
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,412,154 $3,651,005 $3,906,575 $4,180,035
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $690,620 $738,963 $790,691 $846,039
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $192,869 $226,279 $262,626 $302,133
Earnings Ratio 5.65 6.20 6.72 7.23
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$4,472,638 $4,785,723 $5,120,723 $5,479,174 $5,862,716
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $905,262 $968,630 $1,036,434 $1,108,985 $1,186,614
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $345,038 $391,600 $442,093 $496,813 $556,077
Earnings Ratio 7.71 8.18 8.63 9.07 9.48
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$6,273,106 $6,712,223 $7,182,079 $7,684,825 $8,222,762
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,269,677 $1,358,554 $1,453,653 $1,555,409 $1,664,287
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $620,224 $689,618 $764,648 $845,734 $933,322
Earnings Ratio 9.89 10.27 10.65 11.01 11.35
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,444,043 $3,719,567 $4,017,132 $4,338,503
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $697,074 $752,840 $813,068 $878,113
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $199,323 $240,156 $285,003 $334,206
Earnings Ratio 5.79 6.46 7.09 7.70
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$4,685,583 $5,060,430 $5,465,264 $5,902,485 $6,374,684
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $948,362 $1,024,231 $1,106,169 $1,194,663 $1,290,236
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $388,138 $447,201 $511,828 $582,491 $659,699
Earnings Ratio 8.28 8.84 9.37 9.87 10.35
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$6,884,659 $7,435,431 $8,030,266 $8,672,687 $9,366,502
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,393,455 $1,504,931 $1,625,326 $1,755,352 $1,895,780
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $744,002 $835,995 $936,321 $1,045,677 $1,164,815
Earnings Ratio 10.81 11.24 11.66 12.06 12.44
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$3,188,929 $3,488,929 $3,788,929 $4,088,929 $4,388,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $706,159 $766,879 $827,599 $888,319
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $208,408 $254,195 $299,535 $344,413
Earnings Ratio 5.97 6.71 7.33 7.85
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$4,688,929 $4,988,929 $5,288,929 $5,588,929 $5,888,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $949,039 $1,009,759 $1,070,479 $1,131,199 $1,191,919
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $388,816 $432,729 $476,138 $519,028 $561,383
Earnings Ratio 8.29 8.67 9.00 9.29 9.53
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$6,188,929 $6,488,929 $6,788,929 $7,088,929 $7,388,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,252,639 $1,313,359 $1,374,079 $1,434,799 $1,495,519
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $603,186 $644,423 $685,075 $725,125 $764,554
Earnings Ratio 9.75 9.93 10.09 10.23 10.35
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Executive Session
20. Executive Session for Marketing and Pricing Strategies.
SDCL 1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings.
Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purpose of:
1. Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or
fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or
employee. The term “employee” does not include any independent
contractors;
2. Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the
educational program of a student;
3. Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal
counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
4. Preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or
employee representatives;
5. Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a
business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, where
public discussions would be harmful to the competitive position of the
business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open
official meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a
majority vote of the members of such body present and voting, and discussion
during the closed meeting is restricted to the purpose specified in the closure
motion. Nothing in 1-25-1 or this section may be construed to prevent an
executive or closed meeting if the federal or state Constitution or the federal
or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of this section is a Class 2
misdemeanor.
Action: Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
97
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
Executive Session
21. Executive Session for Contractual Reasons.
SDCL 1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings.
Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purpose of:
6. Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or
fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or
employee. The term “employee” does not include any independent
contractors;
7. Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the
educational program of a student;
8. Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal
counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
9. Preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or
employee representatives;
10. Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a
business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, where
public discussions would be harmful to the competitive position of the
business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open
official meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a
majority vote of the members of such body present and voting, and discussion
during the closed meeting is restricted to the purpose specified in the closure
motion. Nothing in 1-25-1 or this section may be construed to prevent an
executive or closed meeting if the federal or state Constitution or the federal
or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of this section is a Class 2
misdemeanor.
Action: Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
98
May 13, 2008 City Council Packet
22. Adjourn.
99