HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_05_27 CC PKTBrookings City Council
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through
innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Community Health Promotion.
2. City Council goals.
3. Report on ICSC Conference.
4. Government access channel policy.
5. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
6. City Clerk Reports: Upcoming Council Meetings and Council Invites & Obligations.
7. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion*.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A
motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the May 13, 2008 minutes.
C. Action on an Abatement request from Robert and Lisa Buchholz to abate a
portion of the 2008 taxes in the amount of $246.63 for Parcel #40995-00021-
703-00 Mobile Home in Western Estates.
D. Action to approve a preliminary plat for Lots 1–16, Block 3, Kreyger’s First
Addition.
E. Action on an appointment to the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee.
F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, Resolution to award bids for the 2008-01SWR,
Sidewalk Repair 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.
1
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
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.
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
14. Ordinance No 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield And Front Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
15. Ordinance No 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle
Windshield Sun Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
2
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for
removal of graffiti in the city of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
18. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 39-08, declaring the necessity of
construction of local alleys (Alley Assessment Project 2008-04STA) (alleys located
between 6th and 7th Street and 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
19. Action on Resolution 43-08, in support of the Safe Route to School grant project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Action on Resolution No. 41-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (CCO#1)
for 2008-03SSI Downtown Streetscape Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Action on Resolution No. 42-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (Final) for
2007-09BR, Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
22. Action on Resolution No. 44-08, a Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of Real Estate
Purchase Agreement (92.3 acres located in the South One-half (½) of Section Twenty-
one (21), Township One Hundred Ten (110) North, Range Fifty-one (51) West of the
5th P.M., County of Brookings, State of South Dakota).
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
23. Executive Session for consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from
legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
24. Adjourn.
3
Brookings City Council
Scott Munsterman, Mayor
Tim Reed, Deputy Mayor
Mike Bartley, Council Member
Tom Bezdichek, Council Member
Ryan Brunner, Council Member
Mike McClemans, Council Member
Julie Whaley, Council Member
Council Staff:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Steven Britzman, City Attorney
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday @ 1pm, Thursday @ 7 pm & Friday @ 9 pm
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. Community Health Promotion.
One the City Council’s strategic goals for this year is to develop a community wellness
initiative which forges partnerships into a community grass-roots coalition designed to
promote health and wellness.
A subcommittee of the Mayor, the City Manager, and SDSU Health Promotion officials
Matt Vukovich, September Kirby, and Andrew Creer have been working on this project.
The subcommittee has found that health students at SDSU are in need of intern
program opportunities and would be available to provide the hands-on technical aspects
of managing programs that are designed to integrate such programs and their
development. The programs would be multi-faceted focusing on nutrition and exercise
programs for all age groups, extensive public education, holding special community
events, partnering with other entities such as City Recreation, the hospital and clinics,
and community health and fitness businesses. What’s more, with a recurring crop of
students needing internships, the program could be self-sustaining. This issue relates to
one of the Council’s Quality of Life goals that integrates wellness into community
recreation programming. More work and research needs to be done starting with
discussions for possible partnerships with the private health clubs.
Creer and Kirby will be at the meeting to make a presentation and respond to
questions.
Enclosure: “Strides to a Healthier Community”
– SD Dept of Health Office of Health Promotion
Estimated Time (25 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. Brookings City Council goals.
The Brookings City Council and City Manager participated in a facilitated strategic goal
setting session at the Swiftel Center on March 26, 2008.
The following is a draft of the City’s Capital Project Prioritization and Goals for 2008
developed as a result of that session. The Capital Project Prioritization is listed in
order of priority accompanied with a policy statement, action steps, timeline, schedules,
project cost and means of financing, responsible party, performance measures and
outcomes for each capital project and/or issue. Each of the goals listed in the
document relates to Quality of Life, Economic Development, Partnerships, Fiscal Responsibility
and Governance.
Formal council review and adoption of the goals is scheduled for June 10th.
(Estimated Time –15 minutes)
31
Capital Project Prioritization for 2008
1. Issue/Project - Airport dual-track analysis
Policy Statement
Complete the FAA mandated dual track analysis to resolve the airport runway issue by year-
end to decide: 1) re-align the main runway at the current site; or 2) relocate the airport to a
proposed site southeast of Brookings.
Action steps:
1) Assemble all FAA mandated studies for analysis
2) Work with FAA consultants to analyze all data compiled for each of the two options
of the dual track for a consolidated report
3) Hold public hearings on consolidated report
4) Make decision on preferred option
5) Begin master plan study on selected option
Timeline:
1-2: By August 2008
3: September 2008
4: October 2008
5: January 2009
Project cost/means of financing:
-Runway realignment option: $13 million gross project cost
$2.5 million net cost to city
-Airport relocation option: $23 million gross project cost
$2.5 million net cost to city (includes land sales proceeds)
-Federal grant funding, city sales tax revenue, land sales for relocation option
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, Helms/HNTB, FAA
Outcomes:
Have a high quality, high performing general aviation airport to serve local business,
agriculture, commerce, and higher educational needs. Eventual master plan should
accommodate the potential for expanded corporate, charter, and passenger service. Airport
should provide basic services such as mechanical service, avionics, flight instruction, hangar
rental, fueling, de-icing, and terminal services.
32
2. Issue/Project - Railroad crossing safety improvements
Policy Statement
Improve the safety of all in-city railroad crossings with city streets through short-term
strategies that install quad-gates and other appurtenances at crossings; medium-term strategies
that accomplish grade separation at intersections where possible; and long-term strategies that
accomplish a railroad by-pass around Brookings.
Action steps:
1) County Rail Authority membership be amended to include City of Brookings
2) Mayor works with DOT plan over the interim on study committee
3) Work with legislators to redraft transportation bill for introduction during 2009
legislative session
4) Maintain dialogue with DM&E and CP in preparation for new Community
Partnership agreement pending sale
5) Continue building reserve for crossing improvements for crossing arms beginning
with 22nd Avenue
6) Work with CP for joint funding of crossing safety improvements
Timeline:
1-4: By August 2008
5: Annual budget process
6: 2009
Project cost/means of financing:
-$750,000 for gates at all five intersections as short-term priority
-Costs of medium and long term strategies have yet to be determined
-Financing partners to be City, County Rail Authority, State DOT, and Canadian
Pacific Railroad
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, City Manager, and County Rail Authority
Outcomes:
Have crossing gates installed at all five crossings within three to five years. Begin
working implementation of medium and long range strategies.
33
3. Issue/Project - Innovation Campus infrastructure
Policy Statement
Install the necessary infrastructure to complete the Innovation Campus with the exception of
the street surface to the exterior street loop; the street surface to be completed later.
Action steps:
1) City/BMU to design Phase II and III infrastructure for Growth Partnership
2) Prepare debt financing package for Phase II and III backed by repayment from TID #1
development
3) Phase II is bid and constructed
4) Phase III is bid and constructed
Timeline:
1: By January 2009
2: December 2008
3: Summer 2009
4: Summer 2010
Project cost/means of financing:
City will issue tax increment bonds to finance Phase II and III backed by tax increment
proceeds from increment generated by TID #1 over the duration of the life of the district.
State industrial road grants to be applied for to add to the project.
-Phase II: $710,000
-Phase III: $1.523 million
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, BMU, and Growth Partnership
Outcomes:
Complete all infrastructure to 126 acre research park to attract technology related
businesses.
34
4. Issue/Project - 34th Avenue/20th Street overpass transportation project
Policy Statement
Complete the engineering feasibility study, and begin planning for the construction of an
upgrade to 34th Avenue, construction of 20th Street extension, and an I-29 overpass for 20th
Street.
Action steps:
1) Study to be completed by HDR consultants
2) Public hearing/presentation on study results
3) Submit project scope for inclusion to STIP
Timeline:
1: By December 2008
2: January 2009
3: Soonest available DOT STIP application timeline after January 2009
Project cost/means of financing:
Total project cost for engineering study: $125,556
-City of Brookings: $62,778
-County of Brookings: $31,389
-Private businesses: $31,389
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, HDR Engineering consultants
Outcomes:
Have a completed engineering study that adequately describes the proposed project so
it can be eligible to be placed on the DOT improvement plan to be eligible for funding and
construction.
35
5. Issue/Project - South trunk utility extension
Policy Statement
Work with developers and BMU to provide the installation and financing of major trunk water
and sewer extensions south of 20th to 32nd Street to facilitate additional development in
accordance with the comprehensive plan.
Action steps:
1) Work with Prairie Hills subdivision developer to identify/define need utility
extensions
2) Have utility plans approved by City and BMU
3) Initiate cost recovery program for utility financing (if necessary)
4) Approve development agreement
Timeline:
1: By June 2008
2-3: June 2008
4: August 2008
Project cost/means of financing:
Prairie Hills' developer and BMU finances costs of utility extensions and is repaid over
time by other adjacent, benefiting property on a pro rata basis as it is developed.
-$750,000 total project cost
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, City Manager, BMU, and Mills Construction
Outcomes:
Provide for all developable property south of 20th to 32nd from Medary to treatment
plant to be serviceable with trunk water and sewer systems.
36
6. Issue/Project - Storm water drainage
Policy Statement
Complete the storm water management master plan, and identify and prioritize specific storm
water management construction projects. Begin construction of said projects.
Action steps:
1) Consultant presents storm water master plan
2) Council holds public meetings/hearings on major findings/results of study
3) Council/staff identify and prioritize construction projects
4) Staff analyzes financing options for projects
5) Specific projects placed in 2009 budget and in CIP
Project cost/means of financing:
Costs are unknown until report is prepared. Means of finance are development fees
and storm water drainage utility fees.
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, storm water engineering consultants
Outcomes:
Have a completed storm water master plan that prescribes, plans, identifies, and cost
estimates storm water management construction projects and best management practices. The
plan must meet the city’s growth management needs relative to storm water management.
37
7. Issue/Project - Space needs analysis
Policy Statement
Address the projected space and building facility shortage identified in the completed space
needs study. This is to be accomplished by examining: 1) expanding current facilities, 2)
replacing current facilities, or 3) combining a new facility with Brookings County.
Action steps:
1) Maintain dialogue with Brookings County regarding opportunities for shared space
2) Examine options for City Hall remodeling and expansion
3) Examine options for replacing City Hall with a new building
4) Examine options for combines city/county law enforcement facility
Timeline:
1: On-going
2-3: August 2008
4: On-going and somewhat dependent on County
Project cost/means of financing:
City Hall addition of 11,612 square feet - $1.75 million
City Hall replacement of 31,600 square feet - $4.7 million
City share of joint law enforcement center - $3.0 million
Means of finance – sales tax debt
Responsible party:
City Manager
Outcomes:
Expand data provided in space needs report to develop decision making tools for
remodeling, expansion, or new construction of certain city office space.
38
8. Issue/Project - Swiftel Center expansion
Policy Statement
Continue to analyze the potential/feasibility of expanding the Swiftel Center for convention,
storage, and office needs as well as the possibility of partnering with a private developer for an
attached hotel.
Action steps:
1) Execute contracts for validation study
2) Hold public meeting on results of study
3) Explore options for additional private investment into expansion project
4) Develop process for selecting hotelier partner
Timeline:
1: June 2008
2: October 2008
3-4: October 2008 – February 2009
Project cost/means of financing:
$6.8 million (excluding hotel)
Sales tax revenue bonds, BBB revenue, private donations, private investment for hotel
Responsible party:
City Manager, Swiftel Center director, Swiftel Center Advisory Committee
Outcomes:
Assemble all the necessary data to allow the Council to make a decision as to whether
or not they wish to proceed with this construction project.
39
Goal #1 Quality of Life
Strategy A (Transportation)
Improve public transportation services. Use the Transportation Committee report to develop
initiatives to improve/expand public transit services.
Strategy B (Bicycle-pedestrian friendly)
Make the community more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adopt plans to promote, encourage
and construct bicycle lanes on certain streets and continue the development of comprehensive
bicycle-pedestrian pathway system that connects neighborhoods, schools, parks, SDSU and
other civic and cultural amenities.
Strategy C (Park system planning and development)
Develop a park system master plan which will guide the long-range development of the park
system. The plan should be consistent with the City’s overall comprehensive plan. The plan
should address means to increase play at Edgebrook Golf Course. Identify physical
improvements to existing city parks and trail systems, evaluate property holdings and
strategically identify locations for future parkland.
Strategy D (Nature Park)
Complete an adoptive reuse plan to convert the old landfill into a Nature Park Preserve Area.
Strategy E (Community wellness)
Develop a community wellness initiative which forges partnerships into a community grass-
roots coalition designed to promote health and wellness.
Strategy F (Education and literacy)
Develop a community-based partnership with Brookings Public Schools and SDSU that
emphases education and literacy, promotes access to technology, and uses the resources of the
local libraries as centers for lifelong learning. Facilitate redesign of educational systems to
survive and thrive in a new economy.
Strategy G (Housing opportunities)
Implement the recommendations of the housing study to develop more diverse housing options
to meet the needs of current and future residents. Examine and address issues of
neighborhood density and character.
Strategy H (Wi-Fi hotspots)
Work with BMU to identify locations and install routers that can provide wireless internet
service.
40
Goal #2 Economic Development
Strategy A (Marketing)
The Visitor Promotions Committee should complete development of a comprehensive
community marketing plan designed to promote Brookings as 1) an attractive location for
special events, and 2) an attractive location for new business development and expansion as
well as its quality of residential life.
Strategy B (Workforce development)
BEDC should spearhead a comprehensive workforce development project to advertise, recruit
and develop a qualified and diverse workforce to fill needed employment ranks. Work with
SDSU for specified workforce program of college graduates.
Strategy C (Retail development)
BEDC and the City should partner on specific initiatives designed to attract and retain retail
businesses.
Strategy D (Purchase property for future development)
Seek means to purchase or otherwise acquire property that can be land banked for future
resale to encourage commercial and industrial development and investment.
Strategy E (Road system into developing areas)
The City should continue efforts to strategically identify and construct future street systems to
help develop industrial parks or other commercial corridors.
Strategy F (Main Avenue Improvement Project)
Construct the Main Avenue Improvement Project that includes street, utility, sidewalk and
streetscape amenities.
Strategy G (State property acquisition)
Exercise option to acquire state DOT parcel as a means of land banking for future
retail/commercial development (Specific strategy to Strategy D).
Strategy H (Rail Authority membership)
Obtain membership on the Brookings Rail Authority to use as a means of improving rail service
and safety.
Strategy I (Transportation funding legislative changes)
Lobby for legislative changes that provide local option funding mechanisms to meet local
transportation challenges.
41
Goal #3 Partnerships
Strategy A (I-29 business clusters)
Promote the development of industry clusters along I-29 among communities on or near the
interstate. Develop specific strategies for regional economic development.
Strategy B (SDSU)
Continue to work with SDSU on mutually beneficial projects. Provide input on campus master
plan as requested. Develop compensation enhancement program for college professors.
Jointly collaborate on mutually-beneficial capital projects.
Strategy C (Intergovernmental relations)
Maintain ongoing intergovernmental relationships and develop partnerships with state and
federal legislations, SDSU officials, school board, county board and township board officials.
Goal #4 Fiscal Responsibility
Strategy A (Reserves)
Continue the practice of officially dedicating undesignated reserves for specific projects.
Strategy B (Debt levels)
Strategically schedule issuances of debt so their placement accomplishes the highest level of
prudent capital investment while maintaining the highest level of financial stability.
Goal #5 Governance
Strategy A (Budget development)
Implement initiatives designed to solicit and secure public input on budgetary issues and
spending priorities.
Strategy B (Public education, openness in government)
Implement initiatives to inform and educate the public about the workings of their city
government through various mediums such as website, cable TV, surveys and newsletters.
Continue to explore and develop live web streaming of council meetings.
Strategy C (Council training and development)
Provide training opportunities such as the National League of Cities Conferences, South Dakota
Municipal League and others that invest in elected officials’ education and training.
42
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
3. Report on ICSC Conference.
City Council Members Mike Bartley and Tim Reed, City Manager Jeff Weldon, Al
Heuton, BEDC Director, and Robin Archer, BEDC Marketing Coordinator attended the
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) “RECon: The Global Retail Real
Estate Convention” in Las Vegas May 18-21.
The Convention is known as the largest real estate convention in the world with over
50,000 attending educational sessions, workshops and trade exposition where
developers, government leaders, retailers and lenders come together to network and
conduct business.
The City of Brookings is a member of ICSC and city representatives attended their first
conference in 2007.
The attendees will give a brief report during the meeting.
BACKGROUND – “Founded in 1957, the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) is the
global trade association of the shopping center industry. Its 75,000 members in the U.S., Canada and
more than 80 other countries include shopping center owners, developers, managers, marketing
specialists, investors, lenders, retailers and other professionals as well as academics and public officials.
As the global industry trade association, ICSC links with more than 25 national and regional shopping
center councils throughout the world.
o The principal aims of ICSC are to advance the development of the shopping center industry and to
establish the individual shopping center as a major institution in the community through:
o Promoting the role of shopping centers in the marketing of consumer goods and services.
o Establishing codes of fair business ethics and dealings with retailers and consumers and with
government and public agencies.
o Encouraging research into the architecture and design of shopping centers and into the development
of improved management and maintenance methods.
o Collecting and disseminating information among members pertaining to techniques of profitable
operation, which can serve to improve the individual shopping center and the industry.
o Study economic, marketing and promotional conditions affecting the shopping center industry.
o Promoting the prestige and standing of members as reputable specialists in the field of shopping
center development and management.
Estimated Time (10 minutes)
43
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. Government access channel policy.
The Council briefly reviewed the enclosed draft Government Access Channel policy on
March 11th. The policy is modeled after the City of Sioux Falls’ CityLink Channel policy
and addresses the management of the site and appropriate programming content.
Channel: Mediacom is required to provide a public access channel to the City of
Brookings under their Cable Franchise Agreement. On March 10 Mediacom Channel 9
became under the management of the City. The purpose of the channel is to provide
the public with information regarding governmental issues and events, making
government more open and accessible. The primary use of this channel is to cablecast
live city meetings and replay previously recorded city meetings, along with any other
video production. Future formatting may include other government related meetings
beyond the City Council, Town Hall meetings, Candidate Forums, and Video production
pieces on city issues and activities. Also included will be a bulletin board system which
is to be a web based user interface with the ability to pre-program through a series of
templates for information to include text, images, and graphics backgrounds. Other
examples of programming are the City calendar, photos, maps, zoned screen with
message bar for updates, current weather lines, news releases, top AP stories,
promotional pieces, information on various upcoming city issues, website links, and
historical information.
Mediacom - Live & Rebroadcast Meetings. Since March 11th, the City Council meetings
have been broadcast live on Channel 9 and replayed during the week. The City Council
briefly discussed the policy and rebroadcast schedule and determined the following
schedule: Wednesdays at 1:00 p.m., Thursdays at 7:00 p.m. and Fridays at 9:00 p.m.
The Council asked for the City Clerk to seek input from citizens on these times and see
if these were appropriate or if other days and times would be better and will revisit this
issue if needed. The City Clerk has asked for public comment regarding the schedule,
but has not received any recommendations for changes.
City Website - Rebroadcast Meetings. For those who don’t have Mediacom, the
meetings can also now be viewed on the city website. Note that these are not live
stream.
City Website – Live Stream. Several Council members have expressed interest in live
streaming the meetings. At that March meeting Council Member Whaley asked how
many Brookings’ citizens have access to Mediacom and this channel. Shari Thornes, City
Clerk, said that live web streaming was evaluated when the multi-media system was
designed, but decided against it due to the broadband width needed to run the system.
Part of the concern is handling the bandwidth. If 20 people logged on at same time, it
would choke the system and there’s no way to know how many people would log on
for live stream. Another option Thornes looked at would be to use a hosted service
44
for a while. The host would provide all bandwidth needed and link to the stream. Fifty
users could log in and there’d be no crashes. If the Council wanted to pursue that
route, she recommended the usage be monitored for 3-4 months to determine how
many use the system. Hosting cost is estimated at $250 per month (fee based on
number logging on, the amount of data processed and handled, and the amount of
bandwidth used).
Retention. The length of retention of the council meetings has already been discussed
and the Council determined that the images would be retained for three (3) months.
There is no statutory requirement to retain the meeting on video or digitally. During
that time citizens may request a copy of the image, which can be provided at a fee of
time plus materials.
Partnerships. Currently, the content of the Channel is used solely for city
governmental use. The Council may wish to consider possible partnering opportunities
with other governmental entities.
Actions Requested:
1) Action on overall policy.
2) For budgeting purposes, a Council directive regarding Live Streaming on the City
Website.
Estimated Time (10 minutes)
45
Policy for Production and Programming of Government Cable Channel 9
City of Brooking, SD
Dated February 19, 2008
Background
Section 611 of the Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to require cable
operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental use. The City of
Brookings has secured a Government Access channel for the purpose of providing high-quality
government access programming in an ongoing effort to inform and educate the citizenry.
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to specify procedures necessary to ensure compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations pertaining to the Government
Access Channel.
2. Definitions:
For the purposes of this policy, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
Endorsement. The term “endorsement” shall mean the act of giving approval of or
support of any issue, candidate, specific person, company, and specific brand
name product or service provider for consumer use.
Government Access Channel. The term “government access channel” shall mean a
channel intended for use by local governmental bodies for informing the
public about what is happening in local government.
Government Access Programming. The term “government access programming” shall
mean any live cablecast, tape-delayed cablecast, pre-produced, interactive
information, or outside-originated programming designed to provide the
Brookings television viewing area with timely, accurate, and complete
government information.
3. Eligible Programming and Program Content
3.1 Modes of Cablecast:
3.1.1 Live Cablecast. Live coverage, principally consisting of City Council, live
call-in shows, and other selected public meetings and events of general
community interest.
3.1.2 Tape-delayed Cablecast: Public meetings and/or events, which are
videotaped in advance for cablecast at a later period, shall be permitted.
These videotaped programs shall adhere to the formatting guidelines in
Section 3.2.
3.1.3 Pre-Produced Programming: Programs produced by the City of Brookings
through a contracted third party. These programs include (but are not
limited to) programs for City departments, issues related to City
government, or with or about groups/committees/boards etc. that are
affiliated with City government or which use public dollars. These programs
could be either live or tape-delayed cablecasts.
3.1.4 Interactive Information Service: Alphanumeric information consisting of
program schedules and public information shall be cablecast in order to
maintain up-to-date schedules and keep viewers abreast of said
46
information. This service shall operate during the 24-hour period when
other programs are not scheduled.
3.1.5 Outside-originated Programming: Programs related to municipal, state, or
federal governments, which are produced by an outside source that can be
purchased, rented, or borrowed for cablecast. Also, programs
disseminated through satellite downlinks that are related to municipal,
state, or federal issues may be cablecast.
3.2 Access Policy. Access to Government Cable Channel 9 is limited to city
departments/agencies. Channel 9 is not intended for general public use and is
not a public access channel.
3.2.1 All public meetings of the Brookings City Council are authorized
for cablecast.
3.2.2 Requests for access to Channel 9 by persons other than bona fide City
officials or administrators shall be reviewed for appropriateness by the
Brookings City Clerk or designee.
3.2.3 Billboard information messages may be submitted by any City department
or agency. Messages submitted should be consistent with the policies and
intentions of this policy and shall be cablecast at the discretion of the City
Clerk or designee. Information provided may be edited where necessary
by City Clerk‘s staff to maximize the impact, clarity, and effectiveness of
the message.
3.2.4 Programs that meet the legal definition of obscenity, or which are
defamatory, or which promote commercial or profit-making services,
products, or businesses shall be prohibited.
3.3 Editing Policy. The City Clerk’s Department shall be responsible for the
editing of all programming on Channel 9 and shall be subject to the following:
3.3.1 Any public meeting cablecast on Channel 9, whether live or on videotape,
shall be aired in its entirety, “gavel to gavel,” without editorial comment.
Exceptions to this policy may occur only when editing out possible recesses,
to comply with legal standards of decency, or when technical difficulties
restrict production procedures.
3.3.2 Requests for messages to be included in the bulletin board portion from
sources other than City departments shall be submitted in writing to the City
Clerk’s Department. Editing shall be by the City Clerk’s staff to provide
clarity and maximum utilization of pages. No paid commercial space shall
be allowed.
3.3.3 Cablecast commercialism is discouraged. Production personnel shall get
tight shots of speakers in a manner to exclude commercial banners and
logos wherever feasible. It is further understood that a commercial name
may appear, and Channel 9 cannot control its exclusion, such as hotel
names or other sponsors’ logos on speaker’s podiums, etc.
3.4 Elections. The facilities and resources of the City’s Channel 9 shall not be used for
any advertisements on behalf of a political candidate or ballot measure. Note:
This does not preclude forums which allow the opportunity for all candidates to
appear or proponents and opponents of an issue to be represented; e.g.,
Chamber Government Affairs sponsored debates.
3.5 Endorsements and Underwriting. Channel 9 shall not be used to endorse an issue,
company, or product, with the following exceptions:
47
3.5.1. A company or organization may be recognized at the beginning and/or
end of a program for underwriting that specific program.
3.5.2. Public forums on ballot issues where all sides have equal opportunity to
speak may be cablecast.
3.6 Promotions. Promotional announcements for City events shall be permitted over
Channel 9. No promotional announcements for events, charities, or outside
organizations in which the City has no official financial interest or sponsorship shall
be permitted. No commercial oriented promotions shall be considered for
cablecast.
3.7 Warranty. Channel 9, the City of Brookings, their administrators, employees, and
agents do not warrant the accuracy of any information cablecast over Channel 9.
4. Program Scheduling
4.1 New Program Requests. All requests for new programming must be submitted to the
City Clerk’s Department.
4.2 Program Priorities. Airtime priorities on Channel 9 shall be as follows:
1. Local Governmental Body Meetings: Regular City Council and other city boards as
determined. Special Meetings; e.g., State of the City Address, City Budget
Address, City-Hosted Press Conferences, Emergency Management Announcements,
Chamber Sponsored Candidate Debates, etc.
2. Channel 9 Hosted Programs; e.g., live or taped talk shows.
3. Channel 9 Produced Programs; e.g., long- or short-form video programs featuring
City departments, issues relating to City government, or with or about
groups/committees/boards, etc., that are affiliated with City government or which
use public dollars.
4. Non-Channel 9 Produced Programs which further the missions of City departments
and City affiliated organizations; e.g., PSAs for Community Cultural Center,
National Highway Safety Messages, etc.
5. Character generated information regarding City departments.
6. Character generated information regarding City affiliated organizations.
5. Management Rights
5.1 Management of Government Channel. All management and programming of Channel 9
shall be provided by the City Clerk’s Department, City of Brookings.
5.2 Use of Equipment. City-owned video equipment shall be restricted to authorized City
activities, and its use shall be restricted to employees of the City Clerk’s Department
and the Information Technology Department or trained personnel under the direction of
the Clerk or IT Departments. Loan of equipment for personal use or outside use shall not
be permitted.
5.3 Retention and Ownership of Tapes. All digital and videotapes produced by and/or for
the City of Brookings shall be the property of the City. The City shall retain digital and
videotapes of staff-produced programs, meetings, and events for up to one year from
date of broadcast. At the end of that time, the tapes may be reused and the original
material erased, at the discretion of the City.
5.3.1 The digital images and tapes shall not be considered an official record of any
meeting and there shall be no liability for inadvertent erasure or omissions.
48
5.3.2 Requests for retention longer than one year should be made in advance of the
one-year period to the City Clerk’s Department and Information Technology
Department.
5.3.3. City produced videotapes may be made available to other stations or channels
for newscasts.
5.3.4 Copies of City Council meetings or other Channel 9 programming may be
purchased for at the videotape fee of ______.
6. Copyright. Programs containing copyrighted materials will be used only if copyright clearance
has been obtained.
7. Decision Making, Oversight, Complaints Review. The Brookings City Clerk, or designee, is
responsible for the production, acquisition, scheduling, and cablecasting of programs on the
channel and for operating the channel facilities.
49
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. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the May 13, 2008 minutes.
C. Action on an Abatement request from Robert and Lisa Buchholz to abate a
portion of the 2008 taxes in the amount of $246.63 for Parcel #40995-00021-
703-00 Mobile Home in Western Estates.
D. Action to approve a preliminary plat for Lots 1–16, Block 3, Kreyger’s First
Addition.
E. Action on an appointment to the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee.
F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, Resolution to award bids for the 2008-01SWR,
Sidewalk Repair 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. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
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.
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
50
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
14. Ordinance No 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield And Front Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
15. Ordinance No 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle
Windshield Sun Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for
removal of graffiti in the city of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
18. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 39-08, declaring the necessity of
construction of local alleys (Alley Assessment Project 2008-04STA) (alleys located
between 6th and 7th Street and 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
19. Action on Resolution 43-08, in support of the Safe Route to School grant project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Action on Resolution No. 41-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (CCO#1)
for 2008-03SSI Downtown Streetscape Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Action on Resolution No. 42-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (Final) for
2007-09BR, Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
51
22. Action on Resolution No. 44-08, a Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of Real Estate
Purchase Agreement (92.3 acres located in the South One-half (½) of Section Twenty-
one (21), Township One Hundred Ten (110) North, Range Fifty-one (51) West of the
5th P.M., County of Brookings, State of South Dakota).
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
23. Executive Session for consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from
legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
24. Adjourn.
52
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
6. City Clerk Reports:
A. Upcoming Council Meetings
June 10th
(Steve Britzman gone – Dick Smith attending)
5:00 pm Work Session
- Project Insight Reports
- LEED Project Certification Suggestion
- Hospital Campus Expansion Plans.
- OPED Report from Rita Thompson
6:00 pm Action Meeting
- Consent:
agenda
minutes
- Annual State of the City Message by Mayor Munsterman.
- Deputy Mayor appointment
- 1st readings:
- 2nd readings / public hearings:
Public hearing and action on Malt Beverage Renewals
4B. Council Invites & Obligations
May 29th
Thursday
Sioux Falls Tour
1-5 pm
Sioux Falls
May 31st
Saturday
Wall Raising Habitat
8:00 am
June 7th
Sunday
Habitat Dedication Ceremony
1:00 pm
June 10th
Tuesday
City Council Meeting
5:00 pm
June 12th
Thursday
Tour de Kota
5:45 pm
June 13th
Friday
Relay for Life
5:00 pm
Larson Park
June 24th
Tuesday
City Council Meeting
5:00 pm
53
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.
7. 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.
54
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the May 13, 2008 minutes.
C. Action on an Abatement request from Robert and Lisa Buchholz to abate a
portion of the 2008 taxes in the amount of $246.63 for Parcel #40995-00021-
703-00 Mobile Home in Western Estates.
D. Action to approve a preliminary plat for Lots 1–16, Block 3, Kreyger’s First
Addition.
E. Action on an appointment to the Swiftel Center Advisory Committee.
F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, Resolution to award bids for the 2008-01SWR,
Sidewalk Repair 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. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
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.
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
55
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
14. Ordinance No 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield And Front Window Obstructions In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
15. Ordinance No 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle
Windshield Sun Screening Devices In The City Of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti and establishing procedures for
removal of graffiti in the city of Brookings, South Dakota.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
18. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 39-08, declaring the necessity of
construction of local alleys (Alley Assessment Project 2008-04STA) (alleys located
between 6th and 7th Street and 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue).
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
19. Action on Resolution 43-08, in support of the Safe Route to School grant project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
20. Action on Resolution No. 41-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (CCO#1)
for 2008-03SSI Downtown Streetscape Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
21. Action on Resolution No. 42-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (Final) for
2007-09BR, Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
56
22. Action on Resolution No. 44-08, a Resolution Authorizing The Execution Of Real Estate
Purchase Agreement (92.3 acres located in the South One-half (½) of Section Twenty-
one (21), Township One Hundred Ten (110) North, Range Fifty-one (51) West of the
5th P.M., County of Brookings, State of South Dakota).
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
23. Executive Session for consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from
legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters.
Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
24. Adjourn.
57
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the May 13, 2008 minutes.
C. Action on an Abatement request from Robert and Lisa Buchholz to
abate a portion of the 2008 taxes in the amount of $246.63 for
Parcel #40995-00021-703-00 Mobile Home in Western Estates.
D. Action to approve a preliminary plat for Lots 1–16, Block 3,
Kreyger’s First Addition.
E. Action on an appointment to the Swiftel Center Advisory
Committee.
F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, Resolution to award bids for the
2008-01SWR, Sidewalk Repair Project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
58
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the City Council’s May 13, 2008 meeting is enclosed for council review and
action.
59
Brookings City Council
May 13, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 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, Mike McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeffrey
Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Deputy City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Oath of Office and Presentation of Certificate of Election. Incoming Council Members Mike
Bartley and Mike McClemans (5/1/2008-5/1/2011) and Ryan Brunner (5/1/2008-5/1/2009)
recited the Oath of Office and received their Certificate of Election.
Discussion regarding liquor issues. The City Council requested further discussion of various
liquor issues, specifically a further analysis of Senate Bill 126 (SB126) regarding restaurant liquor
licenses. City Attorney Steve Britzman provided his interpretation.
Britzman gave a handout to the council and members of the public stating the intent of this
document was to put the key provisions of SB126 on one piece of paper in a format that would
facilitate discussion. Britzman commented that he’s made some good progress over the last two
weeks. The steps he’s tried to accomplish were to identify some of the issues that were discussed at
the last council meeting, to continue to reread the bill, and to hold a discussion with the SD
Department of Revenue Attorney, Michael Kenyon. Some of the topics that he covered with
Kenyon stemmed from the Council’s previous discussion. He referred to a new handout entitled,
“Significant SB 126 Provisions” and indicated those were the key issues and that he didn’t think
there were not as many issues to resolve as there were at the last meeting.
City Attorney Britzman’s handout is as follows:
SIGNIFICANT SB 126 PROVISIONS
Full-Service Restaurant Facility must be Full Service
(defined): 1) Waiter or waitress must deliver food and drink;
(Section 2 (2), (3), 6) 2) Printed menu required;
3) Food menus must include more than fry orders,
sandwiches and salads;
4) Smoking is prohibited; and
5) Restaurant must be advertised as a Restaurant.
Restaurant (defined): 1) Restaurant must have a dining room and kitchen; and
(Section 2 (3)) 2) Not more than 40% of restaurant sales can come from
sale of alcoholic beverages.
Application: Applicant shall supply documentation that “primary” (60%)
(Section 3) source of revenue will be from sale of food (documentation
is confidential).
Renewal Requirements and Fee Renewal of license conditioned on receipt of
(Section 4) documentation that revenue from sales of alcoholic
60
beverages does not exceed 40% of total sales of the
restaurant. Again, documentation is confidential.
Department of Revenue agrees renewal fee would be
$1,500.00 per year.
Service Area for Alcoholic Beverages Alcoholic beverages must be consumed in bar and dining
(Section 5) area. Patio or deck dining acceptable to Dept. of Revenue.
License Fee: Municipality shall set the price at or above current fair
(Secitons 7 & 9) market value.
Minimum License Fee: At least $1.00 per person residing in the municipality
($18,504.00)
Current Fair Market Current fair market value means the price of the license
Value: most recently sold between January 1, 2003 and
January 1, 2008.
Purchase Price of Licenses Licensees who purchased a license between January 1,
purchased between January 2003 and January 1, 2008 shall report under oath, with
1, 2003 and January 1, 2008: supporting documentation, the price paid for the on-sale
(Sections 8 & 9) license to the municipality and the date of purchase of
said license.
Registry: Registry is required and is for each on-sale license being
(Section 10) offered for sale at the current fair market value as
determined by the City pursuant to Section 9. Registry is
available to anyone who requests a license. Municipality
may issue a new license if no on-sale license is on the
registry or prospective licensee can’t purchase a license
listed on the Registry form a willing seller.)
Britzman said a couple of things that he did learn from the SD Department of Revenue’s (SDDOR)
is that their position is since the City of Brookings has adopted the local option that these restaurant
licenses would also be subject to operating agreements just like our current licensing structure.
Britzman said he had not reached that conclusion the last time the council met, but SDDOR felt
because of an existing statute, even though the language in the bill appears to issue the licenses to
retail licensees, the restaurateurs, that would qualify under SB126, that in fact in a local option
community, we have to observe the statute that would indicate that the municipality would
technically control those licenses. And therefore, if the city is controlling those licenses they would
be subject to an operating agreement. Britzman commented that he thinks that everyone
understands how the operating agreements work. One of the key provisions, with respect to an
operating agreement, would be that the city to have a greater degree of control over the licensees. It
would not prevent the sale of the licenses, at least under the way the statute reads, that these licenses
could be offered for sale. He noted that he hasn’t quite resolved that point yet. But at least it
appears the statute contemplates that these licenses could be transferred or offered for sale because
of the registry language and so forth. He also noted the point that if these agreements would be
under the operating agreement, they would be purchasing their alcoholic beverages from the city.
He felt that would provide the city a smoother operating mechanism than if the City had two
different types of procedures going on at the same time; this new group of licenses and the
operating agreements. He said that it is not difficult for him for to reach agreement on that point
61
with the SDDOR, because he thinks that will make it easier for the city to administer those.
Britzman stated another issue is the full-service restaurant definitions. He did visit with the SDDOR
Attorney about the size of dining facilities, because there were discussions about, for example, the
Shamrock and how they would ‘fit’ within this statute. Britzman referred to the full-service
restaurant definition 1-5 on his handouts, and felt those would indicate the key provisions that any
potential SB126 licensee would have to follow, which he felt was a pretty short list of requirements.
He said the dining facilities and the printed menu; there aren’t any procedures as to exactly how
large or how self-contained the dining area would be, or the fact that it doesn’t have to be
partitioned away from facilities for banquets, wedding dances, etc. He though if a person followed
statutes 1-5, they would be able to qualify under the law. However, he noted they’d have to hold out
their facility as a restaurant, so there’d have to be some signage and advertising that would indicate
that within any facility there is a restaurant. He said a good existing example would be the Minerva’s
that are found at several of the current larger Ramkota restaurants/convention facilities, such as in
Watertown. There is specific language (advertising) for a restaurant within those facilities and that
he would expect the state would look for that type of advertising.
Britzman said the point that the SDDOR legal counsel made was that they would like to facilitate
that this works without much difficulty. In other words, if one can meet these basic requirements
(type of food menus, waiters and waitresses, etc.), he felt anyone applying for a license should be
able to review those provisions and either determine if they can comply or not comply on their own.
He feels that would be their obligation if they are going to apply for the license, to make that
determination on their own, because they have the best knowledge of their facilities. They would
submit that to the city, and the city will be issuing the licenses assuming that they met the
requirements, and the council decided they are an eligible party to receive the license.
Munsterman asked Britzman in his discussion with the SDDOR, as long as these 5 points are made,
then they should be covered. Yes. Munsterman noted in the case of the Shamrock, they would have
to look at their operations, review these requirements to determine if they comply and then submit
that application to the city. He also asked Britzman if he had direction conversations with the
SDDOR specific to the Shamrock facility. Britzman responded that he didn’t mention the name of
the facility, but did talk about large-banquet facilities as the example. The SDDOR thought if a
wedding party was there, for example, and they had a short printed menu that the wedding couple
had approved or they had reached agreement on what was going to be served, they wouldn’t expect
that every attendee would have a menu in their hand before they placed an order during a wedding
dance, etc. He said that gives a flavor of the SDDOR’s view is that that would seem to meet the
requirements. Britzman referred back to requirements 1-5, noting there is nothing else in the statute
that further defines these provisions, so he felt if one could meet these basic requirements, it should
be acceptable.
Bartley commented on those that hold themselves out to be a full-service restaurant or a restaurant
in their advertising. He commented that we know full well that the name Applebee’s (it doesn’t’ say
Applebee’s Restaurant in the ad), but we know it is a restaurant. Buffalo Wild Wings doesn’t say
restaurant, but we know it’s a restaurant. Minerva’s, we know is a restaurant. Bartley said in some
of the testimony in Pierre, those issues were brought up and everyone sort of agreed it was common
sense that if it’s a restaurant – it’s a restaurant; but the Legislators wanted it to be a restaurant and
not a place that served pickled eggs out of a barrel and cold sandwiches heated up in a microwave
oven. The state isn’t going to come down on someone if their advertising doesn’t say the word
62
restaurant; the idea is of common sense that food is served, because we’re not going make all these
places who apply in the future to change their name to include the word ‘restaurant’. It’s a common
sense sort of an issue.
Bartley noted that Britzman said the sale and transfer would be available with this operating
agreement. He felt that was still something that the City needs to work on with the state. He said
it’s kind of a mute issue as they discussed in Committee at the Legislature, because if a municipality
has an unlimited number of licenses available, they wouldn’t have to transfer one in order to get one.
He stated it would probably be a mute issue, unless for some reason the City established a price and
the business was going to sell it for under that price to get out of it. He said it’s an operating
agreement and believes the council will work through this issue in the next few weeks or months
before the July 1st.
Britzman stated the application and renewal requirements do provide for confidential disclosures on
the part of applicants. The City of Brookings will have policies to maintain files that preserve that
confidentiality. There is supporting documentation that the City will be developing and the City will
be working with the SDDOR to develop the forms for this. He didn’t think the SDDOR has
reached a conclusion as to whether they will be doing model forms. They are looking at the model
ordinance Britzman had prepared, but SDDOR hadn’t decided whether they would just review
ordinances that are submitted to them, or whether they would try to prepare a model ordinance.
He said part of this is because the SDDOR has other issues they are dealing with right now with
limited staff. Britzman said he is confident that the City can develop both the initial application
form and any renewal documentation or annual report forms that would meet all requirements of
the statute without much difficulty. He stated there are two things to keep in mind: 1) all
documentation will be submitted under oath (Britzman feels this is of great significance when one
certifies what they are submitting is accurate.), and 2) good documentation must be received with
respect to the breakdown of food/beverage sales.
Britzman stated the service area issue is somewhat significant. He did raise the question since the
statute talks about “within the dining area” or “within the building” as to the question if it could
include outside service. The SDDOR has no problem with that, and outdoor service is well
accepted at places in Brookings such as Applebee’s and BraVo’s with their outside dining.
Britzman commented the most significant issue is the initial license fee. The renewal fee wasn’t set
forth in statute, but they agreed it would be set by current state law, which is the $1,500.00. He
didn’t think there was any disagreement on that. This was one of his questions to the SDDOR;
what will the initial license fee be. What are the choices in terms of price? We’ve heard discussion
and public comments about whether the minimum license fee of $1/person in the municipality
would be the fee that the city would be utilizing, or if the City would be at some different value.
Britzman stated he has already gone on record that he felt initially that the city would be eligible for
the minimum license fee at a $1/person because since the City of Brookings has not transferred its
own retail license in the past five years, that there wouldn’t be any other market value for licenses
that had transferred. He stated the SDDOR said, in all honesty, felt that wasn’t consistent with their
thinking, in other words, they disagreed with him on this issue. Britzman feels there’s more room
for more debate on that point, but what their thinking was and he feels it stems from legislative
discussions that occurred and there was a lot happened that he wasn’t privy to during that time in
Pierre. The SDDOR felt that even in communities such as Brookings, with local option operating
agreements, that if there had been sales or transfers, (noting this was Don McCarty’s argument)
63
which it is likely there were sales in the last five years where there was some value attributed to the
ability to sell alcoholic beverages on-sale pursuant to an operating agreement. It was built into the
selling price. He noted that this was Don McCarty’s interpretation and that he had listened and
considered his points, but had not agreed with him at that time. Reading the statute, he didn’t reach
the conclusion that any licenses that any licenses that had actually been sold. But he thinks the
SDDOR agrees with Don McCarty’s point-of-view. Britzman would like to, or prefer that this be
the remaining issue that he thinks still needs to be worked out, because the City hasn’t had other
comments. Britzman feels that is an honest summary of a point that is contrary to the position the
City took earlier. With all the people that are willing to come to the meeting and are paying
attention to this issue, Britzman felt he needed to share that summary publicly. He feels the city will
see more from the SDDOR and hear from other people about that point of view. Britzman is not
sure if other communities of similar size to Brookings that will take a firm stand on that issue,
because Sioux Falls doesn’t have this issue. Sioux Falls has sales and current market values that will
be on the “registry” and will play a part in the issuance price/current fair market value that would
apply to these restaurant licenses. Britzman said it’s good to raise all the points out, because the city
found out that was one issue that the City assumed there wasn’t an issue with, and that’s likely going
to be something that plays a part in the city setting the price for the restaurant licenses.
Munsterman questioned when the city gets to the point of enforcement if the state law puts that
responsibility on the city’s shoulders. Britzman responded, yes. Munsterman asked if the city would
have to have some type of a policy, or something within our current policy, that would address
enforcement and how we would carry that out. Britzman said the city has not had a lot of active
steps in terms of enforcement and maybe we should be more assertive in managing our operating
agreements in the enforcement area. This has been done tacitly with communication informally
with license holders if we disagreed with the way the operating agreement was being performed. He
said definitely, these stem from our ordinance and the city doesn’t issue licenses unless the city has
an ordinance and it would be incumbent upon us to enforce the provisions of the ordinance that
lays out all of these provisions.
Reed questioned with respect to the unrestricted licenses, if the city has the ability to charge for
those also, meaning the license that is on the shelf. Britzman answered there is no mechanism for
setting any price on those in terms of value. He doesn’t think he can found anything in statute and
what he’s always done is relied on the renewal fee as the price in a local option. Britzman stated he
doesn’t know where the SDDOR initially came up with probably the determination of what the
price is, but he has found no statute that would allow the city to set the price. He understands that
would seem to be consistent with what we’re doing here in looking at a current fair market value.
Reed asked if there could be a base price to the lease. Britzman answered that the operating
agreement could carry with it other financial obligations, so that is probably true. He stated that is
because there’s only one statute that sets forth what is to be contained in the operating agreement,
and that particular statute does allow a city to add additional provisions that it determines are
appropriate. So he thinks the city could under that area.
Brunner noted under SB126, it was mentioned that they could be subject to an operating agreement,
and if that is the direction the council wants to go, how would that work with the minimum
licensing fee or the market value of that license, and how those two would interact. Britzman stated
the operating agreement doesn’t really spell out a great deal about the license fee. The operating
agreement would be only issued following an application form and fee payment. There would be an
64
application form is required for anyone that sells alcoholic beverages on-sale. Britzman restated the
operating agreement would probably deal with other issues once that fee has been submitted with
the application. The operating agreement deals with other issues and not necessarily the price of the
license. If an operating agreement is issued and someone has a SB126 license, and 3-5 years from
now that business person offers it for sale; they then could report the proposed selling price on the
registry.
Bartley stated on the June 10 Work Session there are 4 house bills on the agenda: HB 1203-
Sidewalk Sales; HB 1126- On/Off Sale Wine; HB 1269- Off Sale Malt & SD farm winery licenses;
and HB 1142 (“HyVee/grocery store bill”). He said he felt the council needs to work through these
issues with some sort of effort prior to June 10 to be in compliance by July 1 to honor those bills.
He hopes the council can put together some mechanism to address that prior to that so the city is
ready to go. He stated this would also work with SB126 to make sure there is public testimony of
some sort and work through that issue before July 1st.
Bezdichek stated in the start-up year of a business, in regards to SB126, there are three items related
to whether they go with a 40% or 60% in alcohol sales; there is a license fee and a dollar amount put
on that. He wanted to know where that goes in regards to equipment and food sales; is it 40% or
60%. He also asked what if they don’t own the facility which is quite common and they pay
rent/have a lease; the license sale, equipment sale, and rent in first year, does it fall under 40% or
60%. Britzman believes there would be a requirement with a renewal period on the annual report to
have a breakdown of just pure food sales. Most bars/restaurants have five, six, or seven
functions/areas of income; e.g. video lottery, etc. The two they are required to maintain to comply
with this, food sales and liquor sales, could be determined by an accounting system that provides
what accounts for pure food sales. Bezdichek asked what if they have 20% from those items; they
would need 80% in food sales to get to the 60% requirement. For a new start up business, it would
be a monumental task to get that 60% of food sales in that first year if you have a new building, new
equipment, etc. to a tune of $200,000-$400,000. He feels it would be difficult to make. Britzman
stated it is based on gross revenue; only looking at the revenue side and not the net or the net profit.
Public Testimony:
Don McCarty, attorney, said he feels many of the issues he’s addressed before the council will be
resolved, at least he hoped, from the things Britzman has said he believes that they will be. He did
take the comment of Council Member Bartley at the last council meeting seriously when Bartley
commented out of frustration, which was that many people are saying a lot of different things and
no one was giving authority for what their opinion was. McCarty certainly understands when you sit
on a board like this, when a lot of people are telling you things and take different avenues, that it
becomes frustrating when no one is laying out for you why you should do what you are doing or
what they are proposing. Since the last council meeting, he has put together the legal support for
the argument he presented previously to the council. At the time he thought he was right, and since
he’s done the research, he is now more confident he is right. He has also had discussions with
SDDOR and they have confirmed what he has said with regards to SB126 and the adoption of it by
the City of Brookings. McCarty gave a submission to the council to review. He tried to cite
throughout the memorandum, for every premise he gave a citation that supported his conclusion.
McCarty feels this is why the SDDOR has ultimately agreed with what he has said in terms of setting
the current fair market value for the licenses.
65
McCarty stated there has been some confusion in Brookings in the past about what the local option
laws mean, and what impact they have on the ability to regulate liquor operations within the
municipality. This is not entirely Brookings fault. When McCarty discussed this with the SDDOR,
they apologized multiple times for the current status of Title 35, which is where all the alcohol laws
are at, stating it is in terrible shape and that it needs to be updated. One thing McCarty wanted to
point out, despite the fact that some differences have been resolved, is that one of the few statutes
in Title 35 that makes some of the issues more clear and has been misconstrued in Brookings in the
past.
Overhead: State Law 35-1-1.1 “Operating Agreement” defined – Number of operating
agreements limited. For the purpose of this title, an entity that has entered into an operating
agreement with a municipality pursuant to SDCL 35-4-19 shall be deemed to be a licensee.
The number of operating agreements that a municipality may enter into may not exceed the
maximum number of retail licenses that may be issued pursuant to the population quotas
established in chapter 35-4.
McCarty clarified Title 35 is where all the laws are found for liquor regulation in the State of South
Dakota. Chapter 1 provides a number of definitions; it defines operating agreements, which
Brookings uses. Chapter 1 goes on to indicate clearly, that for purposes of the whole title, the
Alcohol Beverages Title in the State of South Dakota, entities that enter into operating agreements
with the City of Brookings are ‘licensees’ under State Law. McCarty doesn’t know if any one has
ever really discussed that in great detail in the past, but it needs to be remembered in relation to what
is done going forward. That statute in his mind couldn’t be a lot clearer, and was definitely passed
for a purpose. It makes it clear that the people the council enters into operating agreements with in
the City of Brookings are licensees under the state law, and they have to be counted against the
City’s quota. He feels that is important to consider in the future as the council proceeds through
this process.
McCarty believes, and goes to the fact that he understands why there’s been confusion on this issue,
is because the term ‘licensee’ is not defined in the South Dakota Code, and doesn’t understand why
not. He feels it certainly should be, and certainly should be in relation to alcoholic beverage laws.
The council has obviously had a number of discussions that could have been avoided if it was. He
stated the SD Supreme Court has used the definition as stated for purposes of what a licensee is,
although he doesn’t think it gives a lot of guidance here. The reality is that it is not defined in South
Dakota Law for purposes of South Dakota alcoholic beverage laws.
Overhead: The term ‘licensee’ is not defined in the code. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.
1999), defines ‘licensee’ as (o)ne to whom a license is granted.” State of South Dakota v. I-90
Truck Haven Service, Inc. 662 N.W.S 3d 288 2003 SD 51
Bartley commented that this came up during the legislative process too; this particular licensee issue.
What the SDDOR, at that time as far as guidance was concerned, put the term licensee into that bill
to help them administrate more than anything else because they didn’t want a separate definition of
an operating agreement other than what they had. He stated they did agree ‘licensee’ wasn’t defined,
but they said ‘licensee’ was the same thing as far as they were concerned; they considered it more of
an administrative definition more than they did a license per se. It is difficult to know what their
intentions were.
66
McCarty stated he doesn’t dispute those things and thinks that is accurate in terms of South Dakota
law, and it is in bad shape as far as the code goes.
McCarty stated he found in his research, because what he thought the City of Brookings was going
to do in terms of SB126 was to disregard some of what he thought were the restrictions placed on a
city before adopting SB126, that being that you had to sell at a current market value, and that you
couldn’t sell a license unless there were no other licenses for sale. He was truly concerned about
those two requirements. He felt Brookings was headed in a direction of not following those two,
which are specifically set out in SB126.
McCarty stated he pulled this quote from a couple of cases in South Dakota, so that it makes it clear
the City Council is subject to the state laws and only has the powers given to it by the state. If the
state specifically sets out, or prescribes, the method for applying an enactment, the council has to
follow the specific requirements of that law. If the City doesn’t do it, it is exercising authority
beyond that which given to it by the code. McCarty doesn’t think there is an issue with it going
forward, as least he hopes there isn’t. This quote is what he tried to say last time he was in front of
the council. The council has to follow SB126, and they have to follow what it requires, otherwise
they don’t get the benefit of the exception. He stated there needs to be authority for what the
council’s position is; that is his authority for that position, and thinks that makes it a lot clearer for
everybody why we have to do what we are asking to do here.
(OVERHEAD) The Constitution and statutes of this state invest municipal corporations
with certain powers; they have no powers other than those so granted and such as are
incidental thereto. Where specific powers are so conferred a municipal corporation is vested
with discretion as to the method of exercising such powers unless the method of such
exercise is prescribed or limited by the Constitution or by legislative enactments. Brookings-
Lake Telephone Co. v. City of Brookings, 430 N.W. 2d 575.577 (S.S. 1988); Robbins v. City of Rapid
City, 71 S.D. 171.176 23 N.W. 2d 144.147 (1946).
McCarty stated he recognizes Britzman’s work and that this is a work in progress going forward. He
doesn’t have any additional comments right now, not saying that he won’t as a draft comes a long,
but that he certainly understands Britzman’s situation. McCarty restated his position is easier than
Britzman’s; which is to look at what one is doing and challenge what they are proposing is a much
easier position to have than to actually draft a document and to get everything right the first time.
McCarty recognizes it isn’t an easy thing to do and hopes in the long run that a resolution can be
had and an ordinance passed that everybody can be satisfied with.
Munsterman thanked McCarty for his work and asked if he has been retained by anyone. McCarty
replied, yes, he has been retained by someone. He has discussed this issue with many, but has not
been retained by more than one simply for the purposes of avoiding a conflict of interest. McCarty
stated he sees the potential for differences of opinion down the road between the
operators/licensees on the interpretation of SB126. As a result, although he has spoken with
several, he doesn’t want to be in the position of representing more than one.
Karl Steege, Skinner’s Pub, stated he has spoken to Paul Kinsman at SDDOR. He noticed in the
license that is on the shelf, he wasn’t sure if the council was fully aware that the position of the
SDDOR is that the city will have to allow lottery with that license. The SDDOR has taken that
position very strongly, and doesn’t feel that they will decide otherwise in the future. Steege noticed
from the application process, asking for correction, that the feeling was that lottery licenses are
67
maxed out and following the moratorium. Kinsman mentioned lottery would have to go with each
additional SB126 license. He just wanted to make this clear and it isn’t something that hasn’t really
been talked about. He stated when these additional licenses get issued, everyone will be allowed
lottery under state law and we can’t limit it as a municipality. He clarified as Britzman stated earlier,
there are several people that are eligible for these new licenses. However, if someone meets these
criteria, all a business needs to be is a restaurant and have wait staff. If the Council values the
licenses at $18,500, and Steege views the valuation of these licenses as a check and balance in the
market place; effectively in the city of Brookings lottery licenses could be sold for $18,500. Steege
stated an example of ‘XYZ Diner’ that sells eggs, etc., they could apply for a liquor license, and it
wouldn’t matter if they ever sell any liquor or how much they sell, but they will have lottery. Steege
stated he just wanted to bring that about; there’s a long list of existing businesses in Brookings that
would qualify under SB126. Steege stated he would be able to apply for liquor and lottery and the
city couldn’t deny them. Steege said that’s one of the concerns that he has is that the City of
Brookings could end up with 15 or more licenses at whatever price, and how would the City regulate
that. He stated it is not a competition aspect, there is a reason there is a moratorium on lottery and
there’s a reason why there’s a limit on licenses. This would open it wide open and maybe at that
point we wouldn’t have a problem with empty buildings on Main Street, because maybe they’d all be
full with liquor and lottery joints. He said that was the comment that he had that maybe the Council
would want to consider.
Britzman stated the introductory paragraph, Section 1, indicates the governing board of a
municipality may issue, but thinks it’s optional to issue additional licenses, and as to the number of
licenses that would be available, he thinks this could be set by ordinance. He noted that he has not
visited with the SDDOR on this point.
Bartley stated this is currently an issue in Sioux Falls and said this will be something to follow up on
as Sioux Falls goes through this process.
Reed asked in order for a business to have a video lottery license, they only need a malt license. Yes.
Troy Hicks, Lantern Lounge/311Event Center posed a question to Britzman; what happens if a
restaurant doesn’t meet the 60% criteria, but might be 58%. Hicks also asked if this has been
discussed at the state level. No. Britzman commented the statute is clear they have to reach the
60% threshold; otherwise they wouldn’t be eligible for renewal. There may be a period where they
are not eligible, whether or not they could reapply at some future date, the statute doesn’t deal with
that.
Hicks questioned if they weren’t eligible, if they could still get a beer and wine license. Britzman
responded, yes, they would be eligible for malt beverage licensing and wine if they have the proper
facilities. Hicks’ stated his understanding is the state is pushing the Beer and Wine licenses together,
and asked if that is correct. Britzman stated he hasn’t seen that legislation and has focused on other
areas.
Hicks stated, as a reference, he knows of several businesses and/or organizations that are one way
or the other challenging this ruling, SB126, to get better clarification. He mentioned the South
Dakota Beverage Dealers are requesting a declaratory ruling from the SDDOR on several questions,
one being the 58% issue, another being the lottery license. Hicks commented down the road, a lot
68
of these questions we are asking will be answered one way or the other and recommended that the
council keep going and hope for the best.
Reed asked for one to get to the 60/40%, you’d take the dollars of food sold plus the dollars of
alcohol sold within the restaurant, nothing else. Britzman said yes, within the restaurant, and the
ratio is based on just those two numbers, regardless of what other accounting departments one has
within their facility.
Munsterman stated the remaining question is the market value of what the city needs to charge for
this operating agreement. He stated we have learned now that we don’t have to sell it, that we can
continue with the way that we do things here. When it comes to distinguishing what price we set
that at, we have to make sure we understand what we can do there, how much that is, before we can
step forward?
Britzman stated the council needs to take real assertive steps in reaching that conclusion. He
recommended keeping two things in mind: 1) We are not getting a lot of input from others
throughout the state. He has contacted Yvonne Taylor, SD Municipal League Director and she’s
going to help coordinate communication. 2) In the meantime, involve people and he and Mr.
McCarty could have further discussions about that point. He stated going back to the SDDOR and
focusing on that particular issue.
Munsterman stated he sees a minimum charge of $18,500 verses the last sale, which could be
$100,000 or more. He noted there is a big difference and this could be a very important factor to
whomever the council signs on to take over that license; that person will need to know what that
number is. Britzman stated if one looks at the overall bill, that is a real significant point, the most
significant one, and yet we still don’t have that ironed out. However, he stated it is fair to say that in
a couple weeks, at the next council meeting, we should have made some progress in terms of
resolving that. Britzman views that as one of the final issues in the process.
Karl Steege said that was part of the point the he made about a month or so ago to the council,
where he thought the big question mark was in valuation. He referenced Garner Hansen, BraVo’s
and the Shamrock and the city has effectively one “free” license left and if the city is talking about
promising a SB126 license as a bridge to wherever you are going to go, he doesn’t think it’s prudent
to enter into that until all of these people know how much that bridge is going to cost. He stated
that Kip Pharis, BraVo’s, may have a different idea of ‘I can wait, I can take a 126 license.’, but if
that license is going to cost $200,000 he might not be willing to do that. Steege stated that was his
concern from the beginning; he thinks the three applicants were going down a road with a big
question mark at the end and nobody really knew what the deal was. He wanted to clarify what his
position was six weeks ago, and now, maybe we’re there.
Munsterman said he thinks it’s becoming clear to everybody.
Brendon Sullivan, Safari Lounge, questioned registering a license for sale, does every licensee, if they
put their business up for sale, do they have to register that with the city at this time? Britzman stated
that as of July 1, if it is for sale, then yes, it does call for that to be registered with the municipality.
He stated there is not a procedure set yet, but that procedure is part of the proposed ordinance and
that is what is referred to as the ‘registry’. Britzman said as soon as the ordinance is adopted, the
state law requires the city to have that registry. He clarified to Sullivan, if a person such as yourself
69
holding an operating agreement, if you desire to offer your business for sale, you would make
contact to city hall and provide a couple pieces of information; this is what the statute calls for and it
would be on the registry. He stated if someone is interested in the restaurant license, they would
come back to that registry, even though you don’t hold a restaurant license. He noted the Safari has
a regular license and this doesn’t distinguish necessarily the SB126 on the registry. Britzman stated if
we are giving credence to people who have sold a business in the past 5 years and the city is required
to keep track of those, he would assume other licensees would also be eligible to be on the registry.
He felt that comment may be hard to follow, but he stated he was trying to be consistent with the
discussion if we are recognizing some of our operating agreements as providing a meaningful value
or price for establishing the price for a restaurant license, he would think those would all be on the
registry as well. Britzman stated that this is a point that has not been contemplated before. There
would be a place for those with an operating agreement that want to offer it for sale. Britzman feels
that for him, this one is a little more challenging due to the local option environment that we’re in.
He stated the council is not used to doing that, or giving any recognition to the value of an operating
agreement because they’ve been issued for $1,500. He stated the city has not been involved in any
of the financial dealings between someone wanting to sell their business, as far as the value they
attribute to the right to sell alcoholic beverages.
Munsterman recommended to Sullivan to keep in touch with City Attorney Britzman and City Clerk,
Shari Thornes on this issue of listing his business on the registry.
Troy Hicks asked Britzman to clarify on the registry, according to state law based on SB126, that
this will be applicable to all licenses, even the unrestricted. Yes, that is how Britzman understands it;
if the operating agreements play a part in establishing the value that applies to a restaurant license, he
thinks we have to include all of them.
Hicks stated that no one has said ‘yes’ this is correct, so right now we are assuming that this registry
has to include the unrestricted licenses. Britzman responded, yes; this is based on his discussion
with the SDDOR, where they reached the conclusion, that a licensee, such as Hicks, his business
would be relevant, if it had been sold in the past 5 years, in establishing current market value. Hicks
stated his understanding of SB126 would pertain to only restaurant licensees and doesn’t have
anything to do with his unrestricted license that he is leasing from the city. Britzman stated it does
not have anything pertaining to his unrestricted license that he is leasing from the city. Hicks stated
he is questioning why he would have to do the registry. Britzman, stated for clarity, we know that if
there had been a sale in the five years prior to January 1, 2008, the council would have to consider
sales of licensees, such as your business, but after that date, whether those fall on the registry and
play a part in setting the price for future restaurant licenses is a point we can resolve in the next two
weeks. Hicks commented then that speculation is what concerns him.
Bartley stated some of the intent of having a registry is for those who have regular licenses. Other
communities that have regular licenses, who have established a value and traded those for value, it
upholds the value in that respect a little differently than it does ours, but the whole intent was even
if you have an operating agreement in Brookings, our history has been to transfer an operating
agreement if it has been in the same location and the applicant is of good morale character and
meets those criteria. He stated it is always part of a purchase agreement in this community when
you buy a bar with an operating agreement, the sale is contingent upon the transfer of the operating
agreement, otherwise it has no value. Bartley clarified the intent is if you own a bar, it’s not a
restaurant, it’s a bar, the City is still restricted on the number of those licenses. He stated if you own
70
a bar and you want to sell it as a bar, you are not subject to SB126 other than you have to tell us that
it is for sale. He further clarified if someone wants a license under SB126, the City can say this place
wants to sell theirs, if you can make a deal, then fine, if you can’t then you can come back and apply
for a license. He stated it is fairly specific in this bill that you have to go to a registered licensee first,
and offer to buy their license. He stated he knows that may not work real well under the City of
Brookings system, but it does in other communities. He stated the intent is that it upheld the value
of those people who have an operating agreement that’s not restricted to be able to still sell their
business, get a guaranteed transfer from the city and a purchase agreement arrangement. He stated
they would still have some protection of value even in the City of Brookings. He stated one can
have some protection, of whatever the perceived value is, if they want to sell that license to anyone
else for a bar, because the city can’t get any more bar licenses; the City of Brookings is still restricted
under state law on that one. He stated the only one this involves is a restaurant license. He stated
again the registry helps, so if one has their business for sale, the City tells the buyers they need to get
a hold of you first. If they can’t make an arms-length transaction with you and make a sale, then
they can come back to the city and apply for a restaurant license. Bartley stated it guarantees those
that have an operating agreement, and want to get out of it, have the first opportunity to do so; that
is essentially what the intent of the bill was.
Britzman agreed with Bartley and reminded the council that once the current market price is set,
which is to be set in the first 90 days after adoption of the ordinance, that price is set for the next 10
years for our restaurant licenses. The value that any other licensees might attribute after January 1,
2008 to their license, they may offer for sale for X amount of dollars, but the council will have
established under the statute the current market price, and under state law SB126, that price stays
the same for 10 years. Those will not have a bearing, no matter what they offer them for. They will
not alter the current market price for 10 years on the restaurant licenses that will be issued 10 years
after adoption of the ordinance.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed to approve the consent
agenda as amended, which included:
A. Agenda.
B. Action to approve City Council Minutes from the April 29 Meeting.
C. Action on Resolution No. 37-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-06STI, Chip Seal
Project.
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.
D. Action on Resolution No. 38-08, a resolution awarding bids for 2008-05STI, 32nd
Avenue Street Project.
71
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.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
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. Vice-Chair of the Brookings Historic
Preservation Commission, Mary Bibby, made the presentations to the following five award winners:
Neighborhood Revitalization – First Bank & Trust Community Development Corp; Overall
Commercial Restoration – Wachovia Securities and Scott & Deb Dominiack; Overall Residential
Restoration – David & Sara Kneip; Restoration of Unique Architectural Features – George’s Pizza;
and Individual Service to Historic Preservation – Stephen Van Buren.
1st Reading - Ordinance No. 18-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 19-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 20-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 21-08. First reading was held on 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
72
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 22-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 23-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 24-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 25-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 26-08. First reading was held on 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
1st Reading – Ordinance No. 27-08. First reading was held on 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
Public hearing – House Moving. A public hearing and action was held 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.
No comments were received. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to approve. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Presentation on Brookings Municipal Liquor Store (BMLS) Financials. City Manager Weldon
provided an update on the progress that’s been made and some of the issues going on relative to the
finances and the sales report of the BMLS. He stated he will be sharing some additional comments
relative to some of the changes they have been looking at, specifically some standardized reports,
and bringing to the council on a regular basis, an update as to how things are going. He stated there
is a segregation of the two basic liquor store functions: 1) operating agreement provision in regards
to override, and 2) brief financial report on the retail liquor operation report itself. He stated the
council will need to total the two bottom lines to get the entire financial picture.
Bill Purrington started by clarifying the override portion of the BMLS; split into the operating liquor,
operating beer (the liquor licensees of the operating agreements), and the malt beverage, which is
convenient stores, grocery stores and some on-sale malt beverage license businesses. Purrington
stated the sales are significant; which include the purchases plus the mark-up. The gross profit is
$801,425. The total business in 2007 was $4,765,308, gross profit was $438,486, and net profit
$398,486. Those sales grew by $364,000 from 2006, and the gross profit grew $32,175.
He stated the retail portion of BMLS is split into retail liquor, wine, beer, and the miscellaneous
categories of lottery and miscellaneous sales. He stated the net sales of liquor is about half of the
73
business; liquor sales of $1,491,892, wine sales of $815,257, and beer sales of $725,541. Sales have
increased: liquor by $133,907, wine by $122,609, and beer by $70,133.
Purrington stated the BMLS broke the $3 million sales mark with $3,188,930 in sales, a gross profit
of $645,285, which totaled a 20.24 % increase in gross profit.
Current expenses for BMLS totaled $192,566, personnel $313,248, capital (any capital items
purchased under $5,000 in value are expensed, rather than depreciated, and operate with a 15-year
depreciation schedule) is $43,053. Non-operating revenue interest of $8,854, rent (1,000 square feet
to Hy-Vee) for $5,200, with total income of $105,292.
Brunner questioned other income under operating expenses? Purrington stated this is cash over and
short.
Purrington commented the 1st Quarter of 2008 has shown some significant increases over 2007:
liquor sales of $362,009 ($21,000 increase), wine $192,628 ($19,000 increase), beer $168,460 ($15,000
increase), with the total sales of $762,273 ($62,000 increase). He commented they’ve had a total
gross profit of $166,310 ($19,234 increase), showing a 13% increase. Sales increased just about 9%
and showed a $26,265 net income.
Purrington clarified on the 2007 Financial, the operating transfer to the general fund totaled
$670,000. He stated they were budgeted for $370,000 and an extra $300,000 came from the sale of
the old building. The money went in the year before last, 2006, but was not transferred into the
general fund until 2007.
Bartley asked if the $300,000 from the sale of the property in 2006 that was added in this transfer,
was any of it used any for new store construction. Rita Thompson, Finance Officer, answered no,
they used reserves in their account to do the remodel.
Purrington looked at five different scenarios for a $300,000 increase per year for retail, then went to
five, six and seven percent increases in sales. His assumption was current expenses and personnel
expenses would increase 3% per year. He stated in the 7-8% scenarios, the numbers start to look
pretty good. In the fifth year, 2011, the net profit starts to get where think we should be and from
there on it will be more than 4-5 times over last year. Purrington believes the gross profit of the
operating agreements will increase $20-30,000/year. He commented that within 10 years, if these
numbers hold true, BMLS will exceed the operating agreements at that point, which means the
bottom line number will be well over $1 million.
Bartley asked Purrington if his projections took into account any additional operating agreements
for restaurants. No, they used the history of the past, and the recent past and of course that will
increase that number. Bartley stated it would be reasonable to assume that it will increase that
number.
Bartley asked Purrington if he could help the council with the operating agreements for SB126 and
restaurant licenses to provide the council some numbers as to what they might see from a typical
restaurant licenses if issued 1,2,3,4,5 licenses. Yes. Bartley is interested in knowing the average
figure income from operating agreements and feels it would be important to know as the council
goes forward.
74
Purrington stated if they do a reasonable amount of business, they should generate $20,000-40,000
in revenue depending upon what the business is. Some generate quite a bit more than that right
now; these are not restaurants, this new entity we are talking about. Bartley stated he was
particularly interested in restaurant operations only. Yes, Purrington stated he could isolate some
restaurant numbers, but didn’t have them with him.
Munsterman asked on the labor personnel costs, between the 5% and 8%, the same percentages are
penciled out. He stated if you look at the 5% increase versus the 8% increase in 2012 that is a
$600,000 difference in business that is going out the door. He questioned if Purrington was
confident he can do that with that same labor percentage. Purrington feels he can, but would
obviously have to have a little bit more part-time help, but would be an insignificant increase.
Purrington stated by the end of 2008, BMLS will have increased business over $750,000 and settled
into a pattern of staffing that mirrored closely to what the old store did with staffing levels.
Purrington doesn’t see a need for many additional people, except for maybe during the holidays
when restocking is such a huge issue.
Munsterman noticed they were keeping the gross profit at 20%, and asked if there was a reason they
are not going over 20%. Purrington commented that he and Weldon are currently discussing this
and they have some plans in that area, but that’s been about the percentage, and used it for the sake
of projections. Purrington stated that obviously anything more than that would increase the third
line/gross profit line.
Reed wasn’t sure when the vote was made to move the store, but on October 11, 2007 presentation,
he noticed the store was on track for projected sales of $3.2 million. What he is wondering about is
that the bottom line isn’t what was originally planned on, as they were hoping, not counting
depreciation, to clear $218,000. Reed asked in the current expenses of $192,000 if that includes the
lease. Yes.
Reed asked in the current expenses of $125,000, where are the extra expenses coming from?
Purrington responded that he likes to compare these numbers to 2005, the last year in the old store;
the biggest expense was the lease of $75,000. There are also increased energy costs of $6,230, for
considerably more space, and a credit card discount/processing fee of $16,083 which is a direct
function of the amount of business done. The more business that is done, the more paid in
processing fees. Purrington stated this has gone up considerably, but business has gone up
considerably. He stated there are a few other expenses that amount to $800 or $1,000, but those
three are the big ones.
Reed asked if the major expense, the lease, more expensive than originally thought. The Increase in
current expenses was $114,000 and that makes up $97,000. Reed asked what the lease expense was.
$75,000. Reed questioned the $45,000 lease price that was stated originally. Purrington stated part
of that was the common area maintenance charges which is roughly $2,500/month. Purrington
stated they received a rebate of $5,000 in 2007. He stated Mills Property Management has taken
over the building, and they now receive a better accounting of the expenses, and are very pleased
with their management and the $5,000 rebate.
Weldon commented the Liquor Store will be providing different standardized reports, similar to the
reports seen in the packet for Year-End 2007 and First Quarter 2008. He hopes the council finds
75
them easy to follow, and if more detail itemized information is needed, that information will be
available to them.
Weldon stated it is instructive and helpful that we look at the operating revenue as separate from the
retail. They are two separate and distinct functions of liquor stores, and especially in our situation it
is helpful to see where we are incurring the costs and how that breaks out. Secondly, these reports
will be provided on a monthly basis as well as quarterly reports to the council and the public, which
will be started right away. He stated they are concentrating on a couple signs of the financial health
of the Liquor Store. They will be looking at customer count, gross sales, increase percentage of
gross sales, gross profit, gross profit margins, net profit, net profit margins, and finally the transfers
to the general fund, as part of the bottom line.
Staff will be following the Griffin Report, which the council commissioned as a precursor to moving
the liquor store some time ago, and there was some very helpful instructions about we can modify
the report in the store. Following that, we will be striving for 20-25% gross profit margins and net
profit margins of 8-10%. Weldon stated in this report BMLS is at 3.3% for the year and has a ways
to go. One of the reasons, as Bill mentioned, was a significant amount of capital improvements
from the store that was a carryover from 2006 into 2007. This won’t be in the future, so there will
be a truer picture to that in 2008 of what that looks like.
Weldon stated one thing they are going to focus on is the net profit margin. He stated one of the
things already done is restructuring management, which has realized a $10,000 savings in personnel
costs, and will be looking to do more judicial use of structuring part-time clerks and part-time
employees in the future. He said the Griffin Report suggested going through attrition by one full-
time employee. They have recently received the resignation of one full-time clerk, and will not be
filling that position immediately. So, he made note BMLS will be down one full-time clerk at this
time. Weldon clarified that he will probably budget for that position in the 2009 Budget just as a
safety valve if they discover it that doesn’t work, especially if gross sales continue to take off. They
will be giving this a try first as per the recommendation of the report and see what happens.
Weldon stated they will also be following the Griffin Report recommendations on markups. Bill has
already been doing that and will be spending about $20,000 between now and the end of the year for
advertising; being more aggressive on advertising and marketing. Weldon stated they are going to
give those issues a try and are confident this will be profitable for the community.
Reed and Bartley commented the reports are great and in an easy-to-read format.
AD HOC Committee Regarding Liquor Issues. Bartley commented there are a lot of things
coming up in regards to liquor and some of the information needed for SB126 and those licenses.
He would like to suggest to the council, the City Charter allows at the direction/approval of the
council for the City Manager to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to work on an issue, and he feels
this is one of those issues that this is important, all these liquor issues, that have to get done by July
1. He feels it may be a little easier, especially if Britzman is going to work with the SD Municipal
League (SDML), to have an Ad Hoc Committee, as the entire council can’t all meet with SDML. He
suggested some type of Ad Hoc Committee of the Council that would be appointed by the City
Manager. He suggested that this be done this evening, to direct the City Manager to set up an Ad
Hoc Committee to address the liquor issues and report back to the council, and take testimony from
the public, SDML, SDDOR, Bill Purrington, etc.
76
Weldon commented this has been talked about, and it might help the city streamline the process a
little bit more. He stated what the council has is a series of liquor-related bills that the legislature has
approved, which the city will need all local ordinances for. He thinks the council can pigeon hole
those together in the same sort of productive process.
ACTION: Motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to direct the City Manager
to form an Ad Hoc Committee referring all the liquor issues to that committee to report
back to the council before July 1.
Reed asked if this Ad Hoc Committee was specific to the other liquor issues or SB126. Bartley
clarified it would include SB126 as well as the others. He stated there needs to be some information
gathered still from the SDDOR, which Britzman is going to work on, and there also needs to be
some information garnered from some of the other communities that are going down the same
path. He stated if you are going to have meetings with those people, he feels sometimes it is
beneficial to not only send Britzman, but a council member or someone on the Ad Hoc Committee
to those meetings; you get a better feedback. Also, he also feels it will allow the public to come to
these subcommittee meetings; publish meeting notices. He wants the public to come, make
testimony, make the request, have input on the process, rather than just coming to the council. He
doesn’t think there are enough council meetings between now and July 1st to do this effectively, and
believes a subcommittee could probably perform that function for the council.
Reed commented now understands why SB 126 would be a part of the Ad Hoc Committee. Bartley
stated all of those issues need to be resolved by July 1st if possible.
Munsterman stated if any of the Council was interested in serving on this committee, to submit their
name to City Manager Weldon.
Bartley suggested leaving the makeup of the committee to the City Manager, and he can determine if
he wants other people, not just council members, to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to enter into executive
session at 6:52 p.m. for marketing and pricing strategies with the City Council, City Manager, City
Attorney, Deputy City Clerk and Steve Meyer, Brookings Municipal Utilities present. All present
voted yes; motion carried. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to exit executive
session at 7:49 p.m. All present voted yes; motion carried. No action was taken.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to enter into executive
session at 7:51 p.m. to consult with legal counsel concerning contractual issues with the City
Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and Deputy City Clerk present. All present voted yes; motion
carried. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to exit executive session at 8:29 p.m. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
77
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
78
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on an Abatement request from Robert and Lisa Buchholz to abate a
portion of the 2008 taxes in the amount of $246.63 for Parcel #40995-
00021-703-00 Mobile Home in Western Estates.
Robert and Lisa Buchholz have submitted a request to abate a portion of the 2008
property taxes on the above referenced property in the amount of $246.63. A copy of
the application is enclosed. The County Director of Equalization recommends
approval.
79
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action to approve a preliminary plat for Lots 1–16, Block 3,
Kreyger’s First Addition.
Applicant: Kreyger Properties, Inc.
Proposal: Create 16 residential lots on a block in a high-density zoning district
Background: Block 3 was originally part of Onaka Village in Indian Hills. A preliminary
plat of the area was approved in 1977. The initial development phase of this “village”
occurred in the northwest corner and subsequently spread to the south and east.
Onaka Village contains a combination of apartments and single-family dwellings.
Specifics: The various elements of this residential subdivision plan are addressed below:
Street Design – No new streets are planned. All adjoining rights-of-way are local
streets except for Crystal Ridge Road which is a collector.
Land Design – This plat is on a “grid system” type block containing 3.85 acres.
Corner lots have extra width, and all internal lot lines are straight. The lot design
will allow for a mix of single-family, two-family, and multi-family buildings based on
the current R-3 zoning.
Open Space – No open space is planned.
Drainage Plan – The preliminary drainage plan has been approved by the City
Engineer
Grading Plan – The block has been graded to create a shallow surface drainage
channel in the rear of the lots. No other grading is planned.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat.
83
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
May 6, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning
Commission to order on May 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City
Hall. Members present were David Kurtz, Al Gregg, John Gustafson, Larry Fjeldos,
Stacey Howlett, Al Heuton, and Fargen. Mike Cameron and Curt Ness were
absent. Also present were Scott Hodges, Jay Bender, Keith Rounds, City Engineer
Jackie Lanning, Airport Manager Mike Wilson, City Planner Dan Hanson, and
others.
Item #3 – Kreyger Properties LLC has submitted a preliminary plat of Lots 1 – 16,
Block 3, Kreyger Addition.
(Heuton/Gregg) Motion to approve the preliminary plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
Item #3 – Hanson summarized the various design elements of the preliminary
plat. The block was surrounded by platted streets and contained 16 lots in a two
tiered design. Lanning added that the storm drainage design involved swales
and outlet pipes along the rear lot lines. A drainage easement would be
required during the final platting stage.
86
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action on an appointment to the Swiftel Center Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Munsterman has recommended the appointment of Rob Peterson to the Swiftel
Center Advisory Board in the SDSU Representative Position. Mr. Peterson is the
Associate Athletic Director at SDSU.
Swiftel Center Advisory Board (1 positions) – SDSU Representative
Membership: 7 (4 city, 4 county, 1 SDSU)
Term: 3 years
Residency: Not Required
Purpose: The Committee is advisory to the City Council regarding marketing,
operational issues and management of the Swiftel Center.
87
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, Resolution to award bids for the
2008-01SWR, Sidewalk Repair Project.
This project entails construction of miscellaneous concrete work in the 2008 sidewalk
area. This project includes repair of curb and gutter, fillets, valley gutters, curb ramps
and homeowner trip hazard sidewalks. There will be a forthcoming public hearing to
begin the assessment process for the homeowner trip-hazard sidewalks, and the cost
will be billed to the homeowners at the completion of the project.
The plans were mailed to several local contractors and 2 builders exchanges. The bid
letting was held on May 20, 2008 and the City received the following bids:
Consolidated Ready-Mix, Inc., Brookings $28,800.00
Owens Enterprises, Brookings, $41,785.00
The low bid was approximately 14% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $33,520.00.
Recommend awarding the contract to Consolidated Ready-Mix, Inc., Brookings, in the
amount of $28,800.00.
Resolution No. 40–08
Resolution Awarding Bids on Project 2008-01SWR
Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, May
20, 2008; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Project
2008-01SWR Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Project:
Consolidated Ready-Mix, Inc., Brookings $28,800.00
Owens Enterprises, Brookings, $41,785.00
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of $28,800.00 with
Consolidated Ready-Mix, Inc., of Brookings, SD be accepted.
Passed and approved this 27th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
88
CONSENT AGENDA #4
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. INVITATION FOR A CITIZEN TO SCHEDULE TIME
ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR AN ISSUE NOT
LISTED.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
6. SDSU REPORT.
No SDSU Student Senate representatives will be available to attend this meeting;
however, commencing in June the entire group will return to Brookings and they intend
to send a representative to the City Council meetings.
89
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
7. Mayoral Proclamations:
Mayor Scott Munsterman has made the following Mayoral
Proclamations in the month of May:
National Exercise is Medicine Month – May 2008 **
VFW Buddy Poppy Days – May 2‐3, 2008
Activity Center Day – May 14, 2008
Law Enforcement Torch Run Day – May 15, 2008 **
American Legion Poppy Days – May 15‐16, 2008 **
Hospice Volunteer Day – May 19, 2008 **
Kathie Tuntland Day – May 19, 2008 **
Toby Flint Day – May 23, 2008 **
** Enclosed for information purposes – no presentations are scheduled at the
meeting.
90
Mayoral Proclamation
City of Brookings, South Dakota
WHEREAS, May 2008 is the first National Exercise is MedicineTM Month; and
WHEREAS, all citizens are encouraged to speak with their physicians about how physical
activity and exercise may help treat or prevent numerous chronic conditions, such as
hypertension, cardiac disease and diabetes; and
WHEREAS, all physicians and other health care providers are encouraged to talk to their
patients about the health benefits of exercise and to strongly recommend that their
patients engage in appropriate exercise; and
WHEREAS, regular, moderate‐intensity exercise has curative and protective health benefits;
and
WHEREAS, the health benefits of physical activity and exercise can do so much to improve the
quality of life for everyone; and
WHEREAS, a healthier populace means cost savings, greater participation in the workforce and
other benefits to society at large; and
WHEREAS, regular physical activity and exercise is indeed a powerful prescription, with great
potential to improve the health of all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the American College of Sports Medicine, with support from the American Medical
Association, call on health care organizations, physicians and other professionals,
regardless of specialty, to assess, to advocate for, and to review every patientʹs physical
activity program during every comprehensive visit;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SCOTT D. MUNSTERMAN, Mayor of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota, do hereby proclaim the month of May 2008 as
NATIONAL EXERCISE IS MEDICINE MONTH
in the City of Brookings, and encourage all citizens to participate in activities and observances
relating to Exercise is Medicine Month in the interests of better health and quality of life for all.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused to be affixed the Great
Seal of the City of Brookings, this 20 th day of May, 2008.
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
91
Mayoral Proclamation
Brookings, South Dakota
WHEREAS: The South Dakota Law Enforcement Torch Run is a grass roots fund raising
campaign to raise money for the South Dakota Special Olympics program; and
WHEREAS: The Special Olympics program is a year‐round athletic competition in which
over 2,000 individuals with disabilities from South Dakota compete in various
athletic events; and
WHEREAS: In 2007, the Torch Run event and other fund raising activities raised over
$175,000 for the Special Olympics program; and
WHEREAS: The 2008 Law Enforcement Torch Run begins May 12th during the week of the
South Dakota Special Olympics Summer Games,
May 15‐17, 2008; and
WHEREAS: In Brookings, a contingent of state‐wide runners will kick‐off the local event at
3:00 p.m. at the Mickelson Middle School and end at the Brookings City Hall; and
WHEREAS: A core group of runners from around the state will finish at the Game’s Opening
Ceremony in Brookings, South Dakota on Thursday, May 15th.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 15th, 2008 as
Law Enforcement Torch Run Day
for the South Dakota Special Olympics
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the Great Seal
of the City of Brookings, in Brookings, this 15th day of May 2008.
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
92
Mayoral Proclamation
City of Brookings, South Dakota
RECOGNIZING THE BROOKINGS HEALTH SYSTEM HOSPICE VOLUNTEERS FOR THEIR
SERVICE TO THE BROOKINGS COMMUNITY AND SURROUNDING AREAS.
WHEREAS, the Brookings Hospice Volunteers’ work demonstrates an unparalleled
generosity of spirit to their fellow citizens. They give wholeheartedly their time, talent, and
compassion to people of all ages at the end of life; and
WHEREAS, their work does not end at the bedside of the dying, but extends to serving
as companions to individuals who are grieving; and
WHEREAS, the Hospice program based on the belief that people with terminal illnesses
can live and die comfortably among family and friends in familiar surroundings; and
WHEREAS, it has been said by Cecily Saunders, the founder of the Hospice movement
40 years ago, “You matter to the last moment of your life, and we will do all we can, not only to
help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota, do hereby proclaim Monday, May 19, 2008 as
B ROOKINGS HOSPICE VOLUNTEER DAY
in special recognition and appreciation of the Hospice Volunteers and thank the many
volunteers whose dedication, hard work, and compassion have provided much care and
comfort to those in our community suffering from terminal illnesses.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused to be affixed the
Great Seal of the City of Brookings, this 19th day of May, 2008.
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
93
Mayoral Proclamation
City of Brookings, South Dakota
WHEREAS, Kathie Tuntland, Principal of Hillcrest Elementary School, will retire on June
30, 2008, and
WHEREAS, Kathie Tuntland has served as Principal of Hillcrest Elementary School in the
City of Brookings for 12 years and as an educator in the State of South Dakota for the
past 37 years; and
WHEREAS, Kathie Tuntland has been an exemplary volunteer mentor to youth; and
WHEREAS, Kathie Tuntland has served the citizens of this community through her
time and resources in support of such events as Project Joy, Book Buddies, and Tables
Beautiful; and
WHEREAS, we wish you well on your retirement! Enjoy this time with family, friends and
keeping busy.
NOW THEREFORE, I, SCOTT D. MUNSTERMAN, Mayor of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota, do hereby proclaim May 19, 2008 as
KATHIE TUNTLAND DAY
in special recognition and appreciation for her years of dedicated outstanding service.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused to be affixed the Great
Seal of the City of Brookings, this 19th day of May, 2008.
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
94
Mayoral Proclamation
City of Brookings, South Dakota
WHEREAS, Toby Flint is an extraordinary active member of Boy Scout Troop 14; and
WHEREAS, Toby Flint has demonstrated the principles of the Scout Oath and Law in his daily
life; and
WHEREAS, Toby Flint has learned, tested, reviewed, and been recognized for his achievements
in acquiring 28 out of the 21 required merit badges for Eagle Scout rank; and
WHEREAS, Toby Flint has earned his Eagle Scout rank through performance based
achievements including planning and developing a nature park for the use of the entire
Brookings community; and
WHEREAS, we, the People of Brookings, wish to express our appreciation to Toby Flint for his
dedication to Boy Scout Troop 14 in attaining the prestigious rank of Eagle Scout.
NOW THEREFORE, I, SCOTT D. MUNSTERMAN, Mayor of the city of Brookings, South
Dakota, do hereby proclaim Friday, May 23, 2008 as
T OBY FLINT DAY
in special recognition and appreciation for his dedicated outstanding service to Boy Scout Troop
14 and the community of Brookings.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set forth my hand and caused to be affixed the Great
Seal of the City of Brookings, this 23 day of May 2008.
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
95
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.
None are scheduled for this meeting
96
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
On Ordinance Section 58-36 this is requested to be enacted to define the term of
“Police Officer”, to include every officer of the Brookings Police Department, County
and State Law Enforcement officers and any South Dakota State University officer,
including student patrol officers.
NOTE – The Ordinance has been modified from the first reading.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
97
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 law enforcement officer.
II.
All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
98
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Ordinance Section 82-1 defines Police Officer as every officer of the Brookings Police
Department, County and State Law Enforcement officers and any South Dakota State
University officer including student patrol officers.
NOTE – The ordinance has been modified from the first reading.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
99
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 law enforcement officer.
II.
All ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION:
PUBLISHED:
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
_____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
100
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
This Ordinance is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing traffic
violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this. There are
statutes under the South Dakota Codified Law that covers this violation.
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
101
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
102
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
This Ordinance is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing traffic
violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this. There are
statutes under the South Dakota Codified Law that covers this violation.
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
103
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
104
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Ordinance No. 22-08 will amend Brookings Ordinance Section 82-302, pertaining to the
Requirement that speed of a vehicle be reasonable under the existing conditions.
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
105
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
106
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
Ordinance Section 82-563 had dealt with non-transparent material on windows (which
included signs, posters, and other nontransparent material). This ordinance also had a
section which addressed windows which were obstructed by frost, snow, ice or dirt.
The revision of Section 82-563 would be revised to cover only windows which were
obstructed by frost, snow, ice or dirt.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
107
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
108
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
14. Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle Windshield And Front
Window Obstructions in the City of Brookings, South
Dakota.
Ordinance No. 24-08 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.
The old ordinance section 82-563 lumped everything pertaining to windshields into one
ordinance. By enacting Ordinance No. 24-08, it will mirror the corresponding state
statutes and categorize the violations.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
109
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
110
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
15. Ordinance No. 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations Prohibiting Certain Vehicle Windshield Sun
Screening Devices in the City of Brookings, South
Dakota.
Ordinance No. 25-08 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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
111
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
112
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
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.
This Ordinance is requested to be enacted to assist officers in enforcing traffic
violations. The city currently does not have an Ordinance that covers this. There are
statutes under the South Dakota Codified Law that covers this violation.
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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
113
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
114
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
17. Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance prohibiting graffiti
and establishing procedures for removal of graffiti in the
City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Ordinance No. 27-08, 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.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
115
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.
(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
116
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:
(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
117
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:
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
118
Public Hearings:
18. Public hearing and action on Resolution No. 39-08, declaring the
necessity of construction of local alleys (Alley Assessment Project
2008-04STA) (alleys located between 6th and 7th Street and 7th
Avenue and 8th Avenue).
The City of Brookings procedure for paving alleys has been on a petition basis. The
landowners that have frontage along the alley pay for the construction costs to build the
alley as a one-time cost, and the City will maintain the alley after it is constructed.
Property owners may pay the assessment over a 5 year period with interest of 10% on
the unpaid balance.
The City has received petitions to pave the alleys located between 6th Street and 7th
Street, and 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue. The alleys located between these streets are
situated in a “T” fashion, with one alley running north and south, and one alley running
east and west as shown on the drawing.
The petition for the north south alley was signed by 88% of the abutting property
owners. The petition for the east west alley was signed by 67% of the abutting property
owners. All landowners abutting both alleys were mailed the proposed resolution by
receipt-certified mail as required by state law. The property owners were mailed a
proposed resolution indicating that the estimated assessment cost was $35.00 per linear
foot of alley, however the resolution should have stated the cost per front foot was
$35.00. A corrected resolution was mailed to each property owner. The estimated
cost was based upon the 2007 alley assessment cost of $27.29 Plus inflation. The actual
assessment cost is based upon the final construction costs plus 6% engineering and
administration.
The City Engineer received a phone call from one property owner with 50 feet of
frontage on the north/south alley who is not in favor of the project. They indicated that
they do not utilize the alley since their garage exits onto the street.
This resolution will authorize the City to proceed with the alley assessment project. If
the resolution is approved, City staff will design and bid the project.
Name Address1 CityStateZip
Scott Dominiack 627 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
David Jones 617 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
Brady Phelps 710 7th Street Brookings, SD 57006
Susan Fredrickson 620 7th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
MZP Box 342 Brookings, SD 57006
Chad Loiseau 610 7th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
Strandell Holdings 160 Lake Drive Watertown, SD 57201
Joseph Murray 715 6th Street Brookings, SD 57006
Michael Helberg 721 6th Street Brookings, SD 57006
Joyce Kontz 611 8th Avenue Brookings, SD 57006
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
119
Resolution No. 39-08
Proposed Resolution Of Necessity
Street Assessment Project 2008-04STA
Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
The City Council of the City of Brookings hereby declares the necessity of paving with a
bituminous wearing surface on an asphalt stabilized base course on an alley as follows:
Alleys between 6th Street and 7th Street and 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue
1. The general nature of the improvement is above set forth and reference for details is hereby made to
the drawings and specifications prepared by the City Engineer and on file with the City Clerk.
2. The material to be used is asphalt for paving of the alley: One and one-half inch (1 ½”)
asphalt surface course on a one and one-half inch (1 ½”) aspalt stabilized base course on a
six inch (6”) crushed gravel base course for the alley.
3. The improvement is substantially uniform. The estimated cost is $70.00 per linear foot of alley.
The estimated cost per linear foot of alley for paving with one and one-half (1 ½”)
bituminous mat on a one and one-half inch asphalt stabilized base course on a six
inch crushed gravel base course to be paved to a width of 18 feet is $70.00 or
$35.50 per side of alley.
4. A description of classes of lots to be assessed is as follows:
All assessable lots and tracts of land lying contiguous to the alley hereinabove described.
5. The method of apportionment of benefits is as follows:
The cost thereof to be assessed against all assessable lots and tracts of land
according to the benefits determined by the governing body to accrue to all such
lots and tracts from the construction of the improvement. The assessment may
be paid over a five-year period and the interest to be charged on the unpaid
balance shall be 10%.
6. The above described improvement shall be hereinafter referred to as Street Assessment Project No.
2008-04STA, which shall be deemed a description of the improvement of the streets as hereinabove set
forth.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of May, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
___________________________________
Scott Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
120
Other Business.
19. Action on Resolution 43-08, in support of the Safe Route to
School grant project.
The Safe Routes to School program is a grant program providing communities with the
opportunity to encourage and improve safety for bicycling and walking to school for
grades K-8. The goals of the program are:
• To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school
• To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing
transportation alternative, thereby encourage a healthy and active lifestyle from
an early age
• To facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and
activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air
pollution in the vicinity of schools.
The State of South Dakota currently has grant funds available for the Safe Routes to
School program, and the grant applications are due by June 6, 2008. An ad-hoc
committee was formed with city staff and interested citizens to compile the information
needed for the grant application. The grant application has been a team effort, with the
Brookings school system providing questionnaires for parents and other school related
information, a local business owner has provided the data entry for the information, and
other citizens have provided input as well.
The Safe Routes to School project must involve the “5Es”:
• Education
• Enforcement
• Encouragement
• Evaluation
• Engineering
City staff has identified a potential route between residential areas, the new
Intermediate School, Mickelson Middle School, and the Boys and Girls club, as shown on
the included drawing. These routes would need to be further explored with additional
public input before the route would be finalized.
Park, Recreation, and Forestry Manager Allyn Frerichs and City Engineer Jackie Lanning
will give the City Council an update on the Safe Routes to School Application. This resolution
will authorize the City of Brookings to apply for grant funding for the Safe Routes to School
program.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
122
Resolution No. 43-08
Resolution In Support Of South Dakota Safe Routes to School
Application
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings supports projects and activities that will encourage
children to walk and bicycle to school; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is desirous in providing routes for children to walk
and bicycle to school; and
WHEREAS, The State of South Dakota has grant funds available for the Safe Routes to
School projects ; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is the sponsoring applicant for funds; and
WHEREAS, the City is capable of administering the Safe Routes to School project; and
WHEREAS, the City is prepared to maintain the new improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The City Council of the City of
Brookings supports the described application for the Safe Routes to School project.
Passed and approved this 27th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
____________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
123
5/22/2008Application 20081SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTH DAKOTA SAFE ROUTES TO SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLSCHOOL
5/22/2008Application 20082SOUTH DAKOTA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)Review of Previous Presentation– Why Safe Routes• Less children walking and biking• Children’s Health Issues• Issues that keep children from walking• Safe Routes as a solution• 5 E’s – education, evaluation, encouragement, enforcement, engineering
5/22/2008Application 20083Most common barriers to walking and bicycling to schoolLong distances 62%Traffic danger 30%Adverse weather 19%Fear of crime danger 12%CDCStudents who live within 1 mile and walk or bike: 1969: 87%2001: 63%1969: 42% walked2001: 16% walked(CDC, 2005)Parents driving children to school 20%-25% of morning traffic
5/22/2008Application 20084Adverse weatherHoward’s Grove, WICentreville, VA
5/22/2008Application 20085Adverse Weather
5/22/2008Application 20086
5/22/2008Application 20087SOUTH DAKOTA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)• SRTS Goals• SRTS Program Guidance• Federal Requirements Overview• Application Content and Criteria• Program Implementation• Questions• Closing Remarks
5/22/2008Application 20088SD SRTSGoals:1. To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school;2. To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transpiration alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and3. To facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools.Simply put…Where it’s safe, get children walking and biking -where it’s not safe, make changes to make it safe
5/22/2008Application 20089SD SRTSProgram Guidance – Funding1. 100% funding, no local match required2. All costs submitted for reimbursement are subject to eligibility requirements. 3. Any costs incurred prior to a project’s authorization are not eligible for reimbursement. 4. Project applicants are responsible for all cost overruns above approved funding amount. 5. Funding supplements, not replaces funding sources6. Selection process will focus on projects that meet SRTS program goals and have the potential to develop long term cycling and walking behaviors.7. Funding is flexible to encourage innovative solutions however, certain projects are ineligible.
5/22/2008Application 200810SD SRTSIneligible projects include:– Projects that do not specifically serve the stated purposes of the SRTS Program. – Recurring costs such as crossing guard salaries, unless there are plans for future funding. – Projects that reorganize pick-up and drop-off primarily for the convenience of drivers rather than to improve the safety of walking and bicycling for students. – Education programs that are primarily focused on bus safety. – Improvements to bus stops. – SRTS funds may not be used as a match for other federally funded projectsSee website for Eligible Project list
5/22/2008Application 200811SD SRTSEligible groups include:– Schools, both public and private (K-8)– School Districts – Cities – Counties – State Agencies – Tribes – Metropolitan Planning Organizations – Public and non-profit entities working on behalf of a school/schools or school districtProjects may represent one school or multiple schools.
5/22/2008Application 200812SD SRTS Project Examples by Funding Type – Non Infrastructure (Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, Evaluation) Crosswalk guard training, enforcement, walk/bike to school days, public awareness campaigns and outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement in the vicinity of schools, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment. – Infrastructure (Engineering) Street crossing safety improvements, traffic calming, signage, bicycle parking, lighting, spot improvements in existing pedestrian/bike ways. “5Es” must be addressed!!!Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, Evaluation, EngineeringProject proposals will be evaluated on their ability to meet the requirements of the “5Es”
5/22/2008Application 200813SD SRTSFederal Requirements OverviewSelected projects are required to comply with federal and staterequirements• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (In most cases SRTS projects will be eligible for Categorical Exclusion).• All documentation is the responsibly of the applicant. – Applicant must secure all of the necessary local approvals and permits. • All infrastructure projects are required to follow the design and traffic signing requirements used by SDDOT (MUTCD) • All projects must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Communities receiving infrastructure funding will need to demonstrate the ability to maintain the improvement at the time the agreement is developed. All projects are reviewed with the assumption that communitieswill be able to meet these requirements. Communities that are notable to meet these requirements risk losing SRTS funding.
5/22/2008Application 200814SD SRTS1. Application Qualifying Criteria2. Project Selection Criteria
5/22/2008Application 200815Application Qualifying Criteria• Application was received on time (June 6th 2008) • All sections of the application are completed. • All attachments included• All required letters of support are attached. • Project sponsor is identified. • Project includes a combination of Education,Enforcement, Encouragement Evaluation, and (mayinclude) Engineering. (Score will not be negatively affected if Engineering is notincluded).
5/22/2008Application 200816SD SRTS Project Selection Criteria• School Partnerships 10% of score • Travel Data 30% of score • Barriers 30% of score • Existing Interest 15% of score • Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan 15% of Score
5/22/2008Application 200817SD SRTS Project Selection CriteriaSchool Partnerships 10% of score• Identified support and partnerships beyond the required letters of support. – These partners should have a specific role in the success of your SRTS project and the letters should include their role in the program.– Letters of support should be addressed to the local project manager, not SDDOT. • Identified Project Sponsor and letter of commitment. – Fiscal Agent
5/22/2008Application 200818SD SRTS Project Selection CriteriaTravel Data 30% of score• Travel data acquired through survey and travel study. • Parental and school support for improvements and commitment to participate and encourage behaviors is demonstrated.
5/22/2008Application 200819SD SRTS Project Selection CriteriaBarriers 30% of score • Physical Barriers– obstacles or conditions• Local Barriers– local ordinances (e.g. allowing cars to park on sidewalks)• Traffic Violations – data for traffic violations within 2 miles of the school with in one year• Bicycle/Pedestrian Youth Crashes– child injuries or deaths with in last 5 years with in 2 miles of applicant school• Perceived Barriers– perceptions and attitudes of parents, children and school that prevent children from walking
5/22/2008Application 200820SD SRTS Project Selection CriteriaExisting Interest 15% of score• Describe existing programs or activities that currently support or encourage walking or bicycling to school. • One of the key elements of a successful local SRTS program is the formation of a Safe Routes to School Team is one in place?
5/22/2008Application 200821SD SRTS Project Selection CriteriaComprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan 15% of ScoreEffectiveness of proposed SRTS plan and it’s effectiveness inaddressing walking and biking to school issues, which includebut are not limited to: • Potential of proposal to reduce child injuries and fatalities. • Potential of proposal to create a safer walking and bicyclingenvironment within approximately two miles of a school.• Potential of the proposed project to encourage walking andbicycling among students. • Project innovation. • The comprehensive SRTS Plan must include how the “5 E’s”,Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, Evaluation, andEngineering (if needed) will be implemented as part of the plan.
5/22/2008Application 200822Program ImplementationSRTS Champion(s) Identify problemDetermine support from education representativesIdentify stakeholders, partnerships and sponsorFrom School From Communitystudents law enforcementparents residentsadministrators municipalityteachers business communityschool district health, safety, walk/biking advocates
5/22/2008Application 200823Program ImplementationFind out more about your communityCollect base line data Consult with experts-student survey -traffic safety officers-parent survey -municipal engineers-walkabout -are there Safe(r) Routes?-mapping -plannersAssess and communicate survey and mapping findings to school community
5/22/2008Application 200824Program ImplementationHold a strategy meeting incorporating new volunteers(from parent survey)• Determine walking biking and school site traffic safetystrategies• Determine best routes to school using mapping results and ifpossible consult with engineers• Develop strategies parallel with classroom projects• Provide pedestrian and cycling traffic safety information• Plan kickoff celebration
5/22/2008Application 200825Program ImplementationHave a kickoff celebration • Kick off with a safety and health carnival• Kick off with a walk to school event– invite parents, mayor, city officials, high school band and others to participate in kick off walk– involve business community and Chamber of Commerce DON’T FORGET TO INCLUDE LOCAL MEDIA COVERAGE!!!
5/22/2008Application 200826Program Implementation• Evaluate the program• Evaluate street safety improvements• Make changes and adapt strategies as necessary• Maintain the program through newsletters, theme days (be innovative and have fun with it)• Take part in community events e.g. cycling in annualparadehttp://www.saferoutesinfo.org/guide/evaluation/index.cfm
5/22/2008Application 200827www.sddot.com/srts/HOW TO APPLY• application, how to get started information and evaluation materialsEDUCATORS INFORMATION•educational resources, activities and curriculumRESOURCES•covering every aspect of SRTS programOUTREACH MATERIALS• fliers, brochures, templates, talking points, tip sheets, media and news room linkSD SCHOOL WALKS INFORMATION•curriculum ideas and linksangela.olson@state.sd.us605-773-2402
5/22/2008Application 200828
5/22/2008Application 200829Closing RemarksAsk yourselves• Do I have the funding to front the project costs until it is reimbursed? • Do I have the funding to support costs that cannot be reimbursed? • Do I have the support of the school?• Do I have grassroots support?• Do I want a sidewalk program or do I want children to walk and bike to school on safer routes?
5/22/2008Application 200830
5/22/2008Application 20081
5/22/2008Application 20082
5/22/2008Application 20083
5/22/2008Application 20084South Dakota School Height and Weight 2005-2006 School YearAt Risk For Overweight and OverweightBody Mass Index By AgeAgeNumber Of StudentsAt Risk For OverweightOverweightAt Risk For Overweight and Overweight Combined5-8 years14,46016.1%15.5%31.6%9-11 years14,13517.2%18.1%35.3%12-14 years12,49117.1%17.1%34.2%15-19 years4,16517.8%16.7%34.5%Total45,25116.9%16.9%33.8%
Other Business.
20. Action on Resolution No. 41-08, Resolution Authorizing Change
Order #1 (CCO#1) for 2008-03SSI Downtown Streetscape
Project.
The 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project entails construction work on Main
Avenue from 6th Street to Front Street, which includes new water and sanitary sewer
mains and services, new sidewalk, light poles, trees, curb & gutter, pavement and other
streetscape amenities.
The Brookings Municipal Utilities staff has proposed changes to the water main design
for this project. The new water main for Main Avenue will be constructed as a parallel
water main system, with one water main located on the west side of Main Avenue and
one on the east side. The advantages of the parallel water main system include the
avoidance of installing water services under the steam tunnel, and the water service
lengths will be shorter, which will be a cost savings for the business owners.
The bids for this project included supplemental prices for the dual water main option.
This change order will accept the supplemental prices and adjust the estimated bid
quantities to revise the water main from the single water main included in the bid
documents to a parallel water main system at the appropriate unit prices a total
decrease of $35,898.00
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
159
Resolution No. -08
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (CCO#1) For
2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project
Winter Brothers Underground, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
2008-03SSI, Downtown Streetscape Project:
Construction Change Order Number 1:
Adjust estimated bid quantities to revise the water main from the single water main included in the
bid documents to a parallel water may system at the appropriate unit prices as bid for a total
decrease of $35,898.00.
Passed and approved this 27th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
160
Other Business.
21. Action on Resolution No. 42-08, Resolution Authorizing Change
Order #1 (Final) for 2007-09BR, Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge
Project.
This project was a pedestrian bridge project in the Indian Hills park, which completes
the Indian Hills detention pond project. The pedestrian bridge was bid in the fall of
2007, and was constructed and placed during the winter. The grading and final clean up
has been completed and the project is ready to be finalled out. The project
specifications stated the concrete testing for the footings and abutments would be
provided by the City, which included taking two samples for each footing and two
samples for each abutment wall. Mills construction arranged for the testing with
Foerster Testing from Brookings, and the concrete tests met the specifications. This
final change order increases by $266.00 for the concrete tests and this resolution will
final out the project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
161
Resolution No. 42-08
A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For
2007-09BR Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge
Mills Construction, Brookings, SD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
2007-09BR, Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge:
Construction Change Order Number 1 Final:
Adjust contract price to include concrete testing for a total increase of $266.00.
Passed and approved this 27th day of May 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
162
22. Action on Resolution No. 44-08, a Resolution Authorizing The
Execution Of Real Estate Purchase Agreement (92.3 acres
located in the South One-half (½) of Section Twenty-one (21),
Township One Hundred Ten (110) North, Range Fifty-one (51)
West of the 5th P.M., County of Brookings, State of South
Dakota).
To: Mayor and Council Members, Jeff Weldon, City Manager and Shari Thornes, City
Clerk
From: Steven J. Britzman, City Attorney
Re: Acquisition of 92.3 acres of land for airport purposes and development of the City
of Brookings/Proposed Purchase Agreement has been received
A proposed Resolution pertaining to the acquisition of 92.3 acres accompanies this
Memo. The Purchase Price for this land is 92.3 acres is $189,215, with the usual terms
for completion of the purchase. A proposed Purchase Agreement has been provided
for my review, and I expect to meet with Don Larson, who represents the Sellers in the
next few days. If the Resolution is approved on May 27th, the Purchase Agreement will
be submitted to the Mayor and City Clerk for execution.
Please contact me if you have any questions concerning the real estate closing
procedure.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
163
RESOLUTION NO.44-08
Resolution Authorizing The Execution
Of Real Estate Purchase Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as
follows:
WHEREAS, for the purpose of preparing for potential airport needs and further
development of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, the City of Brookings desires to purchase
the following described property:
92.3 acres located in the South One-half (½) of Section Twenty-one
(21), Township One Hundred Ten (110) North, Range Fifty-one (51)
West of the 5th P.M., County of Brookings, State of South Dakota, and
WHEREAS, the property has been offered at public auction and the City of
Brookings has submitted a successful bid and has received a proposed Purchase
Agreement, the terms of which are satisfactory to the City of Brookings;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
A. That the City acquire title to the above-described property pursuant
to a Purchase Agreement with Richard Nichols and Shirley Nichols
for the purposes of meeting potential airport needs and development
of the City of Brookings, South Dakota; and
B. That the Mayor, City Clerk and City Manager are authorized to
execute the Purchase Agreement and other required documents in
accordance with this Resolution.
Passed and approved on the 27th day of May, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS:
ATTEST:
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
164
Executive Session
23. 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:
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
165
166
24. Adjourn.