HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_06_10 CC PKTCity Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through
innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that
particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Update from the Liquor Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Project Insight Reports.
3. Liquor Store Report and Evaluation.
4. Economic Development Land Transfer Value.
5. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
6. 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 27, 2008 minutes.
C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
D. Action to approve the City Council’s Goals.
E. Action to hold a special Council meeting on June 17, 2008.
F. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with First Planning District
to provide grant administrative services.
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
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
8. Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
9. Ordinance No. 28-08: Budget Amendment - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance
Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of
Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: June 24th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on the annual Malt Beverage Renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Action on Resolution No. 46-08, awarding bids for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance
Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. Action to appoint the Deputy Mayor.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
13. Action on a revised preliminary plat of portions of BlairHill and BlairHill Second
Addition.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of Brookings:
A. Action on Resolution No. 45-08, a Resolution Declaring Boundaries, and
Recommending Creation Of Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City
Of Brookings.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
B. Action to approve the PROJECT PLAN for Tax Incremental District Number
Three (3), City of Brookings.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
C. Action to approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for Tax Incremental
District Number Three (3), City of Brookings.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
15. Discussion of financing plan for Innovation Campus.
Informational
16. Adjourn.
2
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 and Saturday @ 1 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.
3
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Update from the Liquor Ad Hoc Committee.
The members of the City’s Liquor Ad Hoc Committee will provide an
update on their findings. The committee, consisting of Mayor Scott
Munsterman, City Council Member Mike Bartley, City Council Member
Mike McClemans, City Manager Jeff Weldon, and City Attorney Steve
Britzman, met on June 2nd and June 5th. The committee is reviewing new
liquor legislation and making recommendations to the Council.
Estimated Time (5 minutes)
4
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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. Project Insight Reports.
The following communities agreed to participate in the City of Brookings
“Project Insight” survey. Also enclosed for the public’s benefit are the cover
letter and survey questions.
Council members were assigned communities and specific representatives to
contact.
1. Thomson – Carbondale, IL and Missoula, MT
2. Bartley – Fort Collins, CO and Moscow, Idaho
3. Reed – Grand Forks, ND and Stillwater, Oklahoma
4. Bezdichek – Fargo, ND
5. Brunner – Laramie, WY
6. Whaley – Logan, UT
7. Munsterman – Manhattan, KS
On March 25th, several Council members reported what they had learned
from their assigned communities. Copies of those reports are enclosed in the
packet.
The remaining reports will be provided at this meeting.
Estimated Time (15 minutes)
5
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
‘Project Insight’ Questionnaire
Economic Development:
1) Has your City established specific steps, programs, or incentives to help grow your
economic base?
2) Does your City have a formal economic development plan/strategy in place?
3) Does the City have an affordable housing and/or other housing development strategy?
Code Enforcement:
1) What is your City’s plan for Code Enforcement and its implementation?
2) Does your City perform proactive enforcement or is it complaint basis only?
3) With respect to rentals, how does the City address the number of “unrelated” people
within a structure (i.e. non-family households)? How many are allowed per unit?
Development impact and other fees:
1) How does your City finance new subdivisions and developments?
2) Who pays for replacement of arterial roads?
3) Does your City use traditional bonding and assessments, fees systems, or development
impact fees?
4) Does your city have design guidelines to protect community aesthetics such as signage
and landscaping for new developments?
Financial:
1) What type of incentives does your City provide for economic development?
2) Does your City have any housing projects subsidized by tax increment funding?
Town & Gown:
1) What municipal services to you provide on campus (fire, police, public transportation,
other)?
Does the university pay the city for these services?
6
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Library:
1) In what ways does your public library participate in economic and/or cultural growth?
2) Does your public library share common resources with the University or Public School
District?
Event Center:
1) Does your community have a multi-purpose facility, arena or convention center?
If so, is it city, county, university owned?
If city owned, is it managed by the City or a management company?
Does it cash flow?
Partnerships:
1) Cite any examples of unique successful partnership arrangements your City has between
Universities/Colleges.
(i.e. community Park and Recreation agencies in the area of joint
development/management of recreation or wellness facilities, physical education or
sports facilities, arts and cultural facilities or programs)
7
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Scott D. Munsterman
Office of the Mayor
311 3rd Avenue
Post Office Box 270
Brookings, SD 57006
Phone (605) 692-6281
Fax (605) 692-6907
January 10, 2008
Mayor Doug Hutchinson
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
RE: Project Insight
Dear Mayor Hutchinson:
Our community is involved in assessing our growth needs in an effort to build a sustainable
competitive advantage for the next several decades. In collaboration with our local Division I
University, South Dakota State, we have engaged what we are calling ‘Project Insight’. Project
Insight is geared to help provide our community a road map with ideas from other ‘stretch
communities’ we have identified who are further ahead in their development as a community.
We chose your community to study because you match up with very similar characteristics of
our own, and have exhibited some ideal community qualities we desire to emulate.
We have designed a short survey to help us gather information about your community. We
were wondering if you, or someone designated from your office, could give us approximately
20 minutes of your time to visit about the enclosed questionnaire and gather the information
we need for our project.
Our office will make a follow up call to you within the next several days to confirm your
participation. We appreciate your effort to help us provide good, balanced growth in our
community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Scott D. Munsterman
Mayor
City of Brookings
8
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
March 25, 2008 City Council Minutes
Project Insight Reports from Council Members. Several university communities agreed to
participate in the City of Brookings “Project Insight” survey. Council members were assigned
communities and specific representatives to contact. The Council members reviewed what information
they learned from their assigned communities.
Munsterman suggested that each member highlight what they have learned and then have a discussion
on how to use the information. He will be attending an update on the SDSU Master Plan on April 1st
and plans to use some of that information at that meeting.
Thomson gave the following report on Missoula, Montana:
Economic Development:
1) Has your City established specific steps, programs, or incentives to help grow your economic
base? Missoula does not have anything specific. They have relied on tax increment financing
(TIF) districts especially for downtown which has rejuvenated the area resulting in an expansion
to west and south of downtown. They have a fairly strong agency that manages it with their
own board, director and staff of five. Missoula’s re-development agency employees are
employed by the city. They have invested a lot into their riverfront and a park gathering place
with a pavilion and carousel, which was all done with TIF. A Farmers Market is also located
downtown. They have an improved sidewalk system—which does not have bump-outs because
it is a state highway system.
Missoula has its own economic development corporation which assists in the funding for special
projects.
Missoula is the economic hub of western Montana. Their retail trade area services a population
of approximately 150,000. (Missoula itself is about 68,000; and with suburbs it is approximately
90,000. The university has an enrollment of about 12,000).
2) Does your City have a formal economic development plan/strategy in place? Missoula does not
specifically have a formal economic development plan/strategy.
3) Does the City have an affordable housing and/or other housing development strategy? Missoula
is trying to develop a more proactive approach to this issue. They have a housing authority
which is independent of the city. However, they are trying to promote the housing problem
and have created a video they show to public boards, agencies, and service groups. The video is
speaking about the problem, not necessarily offering a solution. The median house is out of
reach for typical mid-level income. Their new mayor is trying to figure out a solution, trying to
find more land, etc.
Code Enforcement:
1) What is your City’s plan for Code Enforcement and its implementation? Three of their city
offices (building inspection, zoning and engineering) have individuals that enforce various
provisions of the codes.
2) Does your City perform proactive enforcement or is it complaint basis only? The City operates
on a complaint basis only, not a proactive approach.
9
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
3) With respect to rentals, how does the City address the number of “unrelated” people within a
structure (i.e. non-family households)? How many are allowed per unit? The City formerly had
a code that defined “family”, which was taken to court and declared illegal. They currently don’t
have restrictions regarding who can occupy a house. This is a problem as enrollment at the
university has grown from 8,000 to 12,000 in the last few years. Personally, his own
neighborhood has gone from single family to numerous rentals. Since they cannot restrict
occupancy, Missoula responds to complaints about conditions. They are currently considering
an ordinance which would create a program where landlords could agree to a voluntary
inspection, and they would in turn receive a seal for compliant rental. Promote to students
“Look for the Seal” and you can be assured of some minimal safety. The average rental has
about five students. They do have a community police officer who “specializes” in that area.
Development impact and other fees:
1) How does your City finance new subdivisions and developments? Developers are
required to build the infrastructure that immediately serves the site and the city has a stringent
standard. The City has struggled with offsite infrastructure development. Four years ago they
adopted impact fees for police, fire, parks, and community services. To assist in the process,
they hired a national consultant. State law now states that you must have an expert analyze the
incremental cost of the development. Sewer has collected the impact fee for 20 years. They do
not own the water system, however, they wish they did. Developers praise the city’s sewer
development fee. They implemented a new impact fee for transportation. They assess it with
the building permit, even new commercial pays. Single dwelling went from about $1,000 to
$2,000 in fees. A park impact fee is also included. Commercial is quite a bit more.
Construction of a 10,000 SF office building used to be $7,000 in impact fees. It will now be
$20,000 with the transportation impact fee, which went into effect in January. Missoula is still
only assessing about half of what they could. Their Chamber of Commerce is quite opposed for
obvious reasons, but the city counters that the infrastructure is necessary to serve new business
and industry.
2) Who pays for replacement of arterial roads? They are dependent on federal and state
gas tax and is deficient in funding, which is why they look to the transportation impact fee as an
aid to it.
3) Does your City use traditional bonding and assessments, fees systems, or development impact
fees? Historically, Missoula has used special improvement districts which allow them to bond
the cost over 20 years. The biggest use has been residential wastewater system and also
stormwater. They have used another law which allows them to bond curb and sidewalk
assessments to property owners (they finance over 12-20 years and pay municipal bond rate
interest).
4) Does your city have design guidelines to protect community aesthetics such as signage and
landscaping for new developments? Yes. The guidelines have been fairly restrictive which has
been a continuous controversy. They have always required a certain percentage of a
commercial lot to be landscaped. The downtown area has a city-owned parking district with
structure.
Financial:
1) What type of incentives does your City provide for economic development? Missoula mainly
provides TIFs and they have their non-profit economic development corporation.
10
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
2) Does your City have any housing projects subsidized by tax increment funding? Yes. Missoula
has a housing authority that oversees the projects.
Town & Gown:
1) What municipal services do you provide on campus (fire, police, public transportation, other)? The
university has their own police department which is supported by the city when necessary. The city
provides fire protection. The university does not pay the city for these services. The community
and university use an independent bus system, not private. The bus organization collaborates with
the university.
2) Does the university pay the city for these services? The university subsidizes the bus transportation.
Library:
1) In what ways does your public library participate in economic and/or cultural growth? They have
a county library.
2) Does your public library share common resources with the University or Public School District?
There may be minor collaboration with the University or Public School District.
Event Center:
1) Does your community have a multi-purpose facility, arena or convention center?
If so, is it city, county, university owned?
If city owned, is it managed by the City or a management company?
Does it cash flow?
They do not have one. However, they are considering a performing arts center. The university has a
center that is used primarily for sports. It seats about 8,000 and they’ve had Elton John perform twice.
The Rolling Stones have performed in their football stadium which seats about 20,000.
Partnerships:
1) Cite any examples of unique successful partnership arrangements your City has between
Universities/Colleges.
(i.e. community Park and Recreation agencies in the area of joint development/management
of recreation or wellness facilities, physical education or sports facilities, arts and cultural
facilities or programs)
There are no specific examples. They work hard to communicate with each other and to know what
the other is doing.
Reed gave the following report on Grand Forks, North Dakota:
The Mayor is part-time, has no administrative duties. Those duties are the responsibility of the city
administrator. The Mayor seems stronger then our form of government and has a full-time assistant.
Economic Development. Grand Forks does have an established plan and programs to help grow their
economic base. The city has funded a growth account that is used by the Regional EDC. It currently
stands at $4 million. The account can be used to purchase land, fund infrastructure improvements, spec
buildings, and also for incentives.
Grand Forks has completed an area of 20 affordable homes where the entire infrastructure was paid for
by the city. It has been very successful and they are moving on with phase 2 for another 20 homes.
11
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Code Enforcement. Grand Forks rezoned areas close to campus to avoid having too many rentals in
one area. The city enforces code by complaint and proactive inspections. If a landlord receives 3
complaints their rental license is revoked. They allow 4 unrelated people in a unit.
Development impact and other fees. In new areas marked for development 50% of the infrastructure
costs are paid for by the developer and 50% are paid for by the city and then assessed back to the
property when fully developed.
Grand Forks has very strict guidelines for development, which are enforced.
Town and Gown. Grand Forks is responsible for fire, storm drainage control, and building and health
inspections on campus. The city gave the university $100,000 per year for five years as seed money to
hire professors/researchers that in turn would be able to get research grants.
The full Council meets with the full Student Body Government quarterly and leaders of both entities
meet monthly.
They have a “Just Say Hi” program to get students to know neighbors, which has been very successful.
Event Center. The Alerus Center is owned by the city. The city has a ¼% sales tax that funds the
capital it required to do the center and the ongoing expenses. Although it is now cash flowing, they are
charging a parking fee and that gives them the additional revenue to cover expenses.
Their Mayor offered meeting half way.
Reed reported on Stillwater, Oklahoma:
He had a conference call with Mayor Roger McMillian, and he would like to receive a copy of the full
report if we do one.
Economic Development. Stillwater does not have any proactive Economic Development Plan. Although
the Mayor explained how they worked with Mercury Marine to build an expansion on the current plant
located in Stillwater instead of in China, most of the incentive package was in utilities concessions. The
city owns the electric utility.
Affordable housing is a issue that they are trying figure out. A large percentage of the wage earners
commute to Stillwater. OSU employment is around 4,800 and 45-48% live outside of Stillwater because
of housing costs. When a development was created with some modified standards to reduce the price,
they found that the people still stayed or purchased homes in outlying communities.
Code Enforcement. Stillwater code enforcement is both proactive and complaint based. When OSU
received a gift of over $400 million for a new athletic village they removed 850 homes (23 acres) which
happened to be the most substandard housing in town. Recently more issues have arisen and the city is
becoming more proactive.
Development impact and other fees. Developers pay 100% of the infrastructure needs.
Stillwater recently adopted a new set of development guidelines that has been in the making for 10
years. It has taken a lot of compromising with pro and con development.
12
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Town and Gown. The university didn’t do a good job with communicating the new athletic village with
the town’s people and the city. So the T&G relationship has been strained and many in the city are
asking more from the University. The Mayor felt that the pressure has made the city look to the
University to pay more of their own way. Over 40% of fire calls are located on campus. OSU received
a break on water and that has been recently reversed.
Event Center. Stillwater does not own any event or convention center.
Brunner reported on Laramie, Wyoming:
Economic Development. They did not provide many specifics on economic development. They don’t
have any affordable housing or housing strategies in place. This community appears to be fairly
independent and most were privately operating with no government involvement.
The City doesn’t finance new developments and the main roads are state highways. The collectors are
handled by the city. They don’t currently have impact fees, but would consider them in the future.
They have limited guidelines on development standards for aesthetics.
Code Enforcement. Laramie’s code enforcement consists of nuisance responses on a complaint basis.
Rentals are similar to Brookings, which is three or less unrelated are allowed. However, in the R3 zone
they allow 4 unrelated.
Laramie does not have a public library.
Event Center. The Convention Center is owned by the University.
Partnerships. They cited partnerships in golf and tennis.
Town and Gown. The City provides the University with emergency services, review of building plans,
and fire inspections at no cost. Ambulance service is provided on campus, but at cost. The university
contributes one percent to the annual fire budget and also contributed to the cost of fire trucks.
Whaley reported on Logan, Utah:
Economic Development.
#1 - Logan does have a process in place to offer incentives to businesses or developers that bring
projects that meets the city’s economic goals which includes job creation, wage levels, capital
investment, catalytic effect, etc. The majority of such incentives are limited to projects occurring in the
city’s six Redevelopment Project Areas or its one Economic Development Project Area. A 12-member
Economic Development Committee makes recommendations that are presented to their
Redevelopment Agency Board. They are also in the process of seeking local approval to use CDBG
funds for the establishment of a Business Development Fund for projects in their historical downtown.
They respond to direct inquiries as well as those that come through the state economic development
department.
#2 - Logan does have an economic development strategy in place to guide the work of their economic
development department and committees. While it is not formal in the sense of its being approved by
the city legislative leaders, it is in harmony with the city’s general plan which has been formalized.
13
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
#3 - The city works with providers of affordable housing to ensure that there is an adequate supply.
Roughly 20% of all redevelopment/economic development project area revenues are earmarked to assist
such projects get off the ground. They assist those projects that are appropriately-funded and for which
there is a market to support it, be it units for veterans, for the elderly, etc.
Code Enforcement #1/#2: The city has a Code Compliance Inspector and a Neighborhood
Improvement Coordinator for the enforcement of commercial and residential code issues. The
residential side is currently completely complaint-driven, while the commercial side is a combination.
Being a university town, there is a fair number of illegal rental units and the city will be embarking on a
proactive effort to curb this problem by primarily focusing on illegal parking in the rights-of-way.
#3 - The city addresses the number of unrelated people in rentals by allowing up to three (3) unrelated
individuals to live in any given structure.
Development impact and other fees
#1 - Typically, the city would like to see the land developer pay for roads and other infrastructure going
into new developments. If only one side of the street is being developed, many times the city will cover
half of a road and then get reimbursed once the opposite side is developed.
#2 - Roads typically would be dedicated to the city and then the city would carry the expense to
maintain and replace them, if necessary.
#3 - The City has used bonding where it wanted to lead the development. Impact fees were
implemented about a year and a half ago. Building permit fees have been in place for years.
Assessments have been used. For example, in the downtown area, property owners are assessed based
on lineal frontage or square footage, the majority of the cost to install new streetscape improvements.
#4 - The city does have design guidelines to protect community aesthetics. These can be found on their
website www.loganutah.org and then select the Community Development Department, followed by
clicking on the Land Development Code link.
Financial
#1 - Logan primarily offers tax increment rebates associated with their redevelopment and economic
development project areas. In the past, however, other incentives such as cost of infrastructure and
sales tax rebates have been given.
#2 - Yes, the city has subsidized affordable housing projects with tax increment revenues.
Town & Gown. The city responds to fire and medical emergencies at the university. According to the
city fire marshal, the city does not require the university to pay for this service. The university has their
own fire marshal. The university has their own police force, but the city has expertise that it would lend
if needed (i.e. SWAT, homicide investigation, etc.).
Library. The library maintains on its website information about events of historical significance in
Logan’s history as a means of preserving our cultural heritage. A community calendar also keeps citizens
apprised of various cultural events that are happening. The library is an anchor to downtown Logan. As
such, it is a player in the economic development of the downtown. Currently, the library is being
explored as to how it can contribute to the economic vitality of the downtown area to a greater degree.
14
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Event Center. Logan does have an arena which is owned by the university. The city does not have a
convention center. However, a private developer is currently in the process of building a 31,000 square
foot conference center. The city provided an incentive through its redevelopment agency, however the
O/M expenses will be fully carried by the developer/operator.
Partnerships. The university has an electrical power producing turbine. The University purchases
power from the city’s electrical power department because it is cheaper than what they can generate on
their own. However, the city purchases some of its peak power from the university as it has a better
rate than some of the power available on the open market.
Munsterman reported on Manhattan, KS:
Economic Development:
1) Has your City established specific steps, programs, or incentives to help grow your economic
base? They have a copy of the economic development model and recently modified it.
2) Does your City have a formal economic development plan/strategy in place? Yes.
3) Does the City have an affordable housing and/or other housing development strategy?
Manhattan is struggling with the definition of affordable housing. They have a military post 18
miles away. The valuations have gone through the roof in the last 6-7 years. A housing
development map is updated every month. Platted, developers, etc… are on one source.
Code Enforcement:
1) What is your City’s plan for Code Enforcement and its implementation? No comment.
2) Does your City perform proactive enforcement or is it complaint basis only?
Manhattan has six enforcement officers under their fire department. They are sending a copy of
their policy.
3) With respect to rentals, how does the City address the number of “unrelated” people within a
structure (i.e. non-family households)? How many are allowed per unit?
Four unrelated people per structure is the limit. Landlords are not required to register. Down
zoned areas around campus to residential (multi family overlay district).
Development impact and other fees:
1) How does your City finance new subdivisions and developments?
New subdivisions and developments are under a special assessment process. The city pays for
the upfront cost, and then the costs are apportioned to each land owner.
Specials added on to the lot buyer include water, sewer, and street. Instead of the developer
paying upfront, it is bonded over a 20 year period, then it is assessed to buyer for the remaining
19 years on the lot. This process allows new subdivisions and developments to be affordable.
2) Who pays for replacement of arterial roads?
In the city limits the city replaces the arterial roads. The technical park is provided for by a joint
agreement between the city and the county.
3) Does your City use traditional bonding and assessments, fees systems, or development impact
fees?
15
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Currently, Manhattan utilizes all of the above with the exception of development impact fees.
However, they are looking into the application of these fees.
3) Does your city have design guidelines to protect community aesthetics such as signage and
landscaping for new developments?
Yes, there are zoning regulations to maintain the aesthetics of the community.
Financial:
1) What type of incentives does your City provide for economic development?
The City and County split a one-fourth sales tax for economic development.
2) Does your City have any housing projects subsidized by tax increment funding?
Manhattan does not subsidize housing projects; however, a downtown redevelopment project is
subsidized.
Town & Gown:
1) What municipal services to you provide on campus (fire, police, public transportation,
other)?
Fire service is provided on campus; police service is not. Governed by a law board city/county
joint venture. They will send us a good example they are looking in Kearney Nebraska… share
resources but operate separately.
2) Does the university pay the city for these services?
Fire – yes, but $8,000 per year (minimal). Also the largest false alarm agencies in town.
Library:
1) In what ways does your public library participate in economic and/or cultural growth?
2) Does your public library share common resources with the University or Public School District?
Event Center:
1) Does your community have a multi-purpose facility, arena or convention center?
i. If so, is it city, county, university owned?
ii. If city owned, is it managed by the City or a management company?
iii. Does it cash flow?
Partnerships:
1) Cite any examples of unique successful partnership arrangements your City has between
Universities/Colleges (i.e. community Park and Recreation agencies in the area of joint
development/management of recreation or wellness facilities, physical education or sports
facilities, arts and cultural facilities or programs).
A City built incubator is on KSU in order to use K State research. There are three partners and
it has been working well.
16
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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. Liquor Store Report and Evaluation.
Bill Purrington, Municipal Liquor Store Manager, reviewed the enclosed
reports with the City Council at their May 13th work session. At the
meeting, Council Member McClemans requested an additional review and
evaluation of those reports.
*Note that there are two additional reports from those provided on May
13th.
Estimated Time (10 minutes)
17
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Brookings Liquor Store Year-End Report 2007
2007 was the first full year that we operated out of our new store in the Brookings Mall. In
2007 total sales increased by $361,311 which was a 12.77 % increase over 2006. The net retail
profit for the year was $133,488.
The attached financial statement lists the various categories of gross and net sales. The second
grouping of numbers is the cost of goods section for each category. Cost of goods is figured by
adding the yearly purchases to the beginning yearly inventory and subtracting the ending yearly
inventory. The cost of goods for each category is subtracted from the net sales amount to
arrive at gross profit.
The operating expense section lists current expenses, personnel expenses, capital costs under
$5,000 and depreciation expense. .
Under non-operating revenue we made $8,854 in interest and $5,200 in rent to Hy-Vee.
Obviously, we want the net profit to be more than $105,292. Because we are leasing our space
and because our facility is larger than the old store our expenses are higher. I believe that the
best way to assess how our store is doing is to compare our performance in 2007 to our
performance in 2005 which was the last year we operated in the old store. Our current and
personnel expenses were $181,668 higher in 2007 than 2005. However, we didn’t make
$181,668 less in 2007 than we did in 2005. We made $92,933 less than we did in 2005. By
increasing our sales we were able to offset $88,735 in these extra expenses. By the end of
2008 we will have offset nearly all the increased expenses it takes to operate this store. I
believe that this year our net profit will be approximately $170,000. In 2005 our net retail
profit was $198,255.
The main increased expenses in 2007 were a lease payment of $74,466.84, an increase in
personnel costs of $37,852 and an increase in our credit card processing fee of $16,082.98 (this
is directly related to our increase in sales and the increase in credit card usage) and an increase
in depreciation of $30,134. Surprisingly, our electric and natural gas costs only increased $6231
from 2005 levels. I think the main reason for this is that the cooling units for the beer cooler
are much more efficient than the ones in our old building. The personnel costs were higher for
two reasons. Our full-time employees received a yearly raise and we spent over $18,000 more
for part-time help. The reason our part-time hours went up is that we had a great deal of work
to do to finish the store. We had several extra people on duty nearly everyday doing tasks
associated with finishing the store.
I believe that our current expenses will go up slightly in 2008 but that personnel expenses will
decrease. The reasons for this are that we will have eliminated the Assistant Manager position
which will save us $10,000 per year, one of our full-time staff has just resigned and we do not
expect to replace that person until this fall if at all. The hours worked by that full-time person
will be worked by part-time employees as a much lower rate of pay. In total I am projecting
that total expenses in 2008 will be very close to the 2007 amount.
18
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
I have prepared spreadsheets with different sales increase scenarios to illustrate our store’s
potential sales and net profit growth. The projections increases that I used are 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%
and a straight $300,000 increase per year. For 2008 only I decreased the personnel costs by
$20,000, because of the aforementioned reasons, but increased current expenses by 3%. I
increased personnel and current expenses by 3% each year thereafter.
Each spreadsheet shows the sales with the applicable increase applied. Be advised that the
expenses and net profits used in these examples are all calculated without
considering depreciation expense. Since I have no control over depreciation
expenses my intent is to illustrate the profitability of the retail operation by using
out-of-pocket expenses which I have some control over. Gross profit is calculated by
multiplying the gross profit percentage by the sales (for purposes of these spreadsheets I used
the 2007 gross profit % figure throughout). The current expenses and personnel expenses are
listed under the gross profit and the net profit is calculated by subtracting the two expense
figures from the gross profit. The final line shows the earnings ratio which is calculated by
dividing the net profit by the sales.
As you can see, the gross profit increases each year because sales and the resulting gross profit
increase faster than the expenses increase.
I believe that the 8% scenario in the short term is the most plausible scenario. In fact, the sales
for 2008 are a little understated because I estimate that we will increase our sales by
approximately $300,000 this year. If we do increase our sales by $300,000 in 2008 we will net
another $10,000.
Because I believe the 8% scenario is the most plausible I will cite some high points of this
spreadsheet. In 2008 the net profit is projected at $199,323 which is an increase of $65,835.
In 2011, which will be our fifth full year at this location, my projections are sales of $4,338,503,
a gross margin of $878,113 and a net profit of $334,206 which is an increase of $200,718 from
2007. The earnings ratio in 2011 is 7.70 which is getting very close to our goal of 8%.
The second five years of this projection show an even more pronounced increase. In year 2016
the sales are $6,374,684, which is double our 2007 sales (when I started as manager in 1984
our sales were $1,400,000. In 2006 are sales were over $2,800,000 which means that it took
us 22 years to double our sales at the old store), the gross margin is $1,290,236 and the net
profit is $659,699. The resulting earnings ratio is 10.35 %. I believe that sometime between
2016 and 2021 our net retail profit will exceed the net override profit. If the net override
profit continues to increase at its present pace the total net profit of the retail and the override
operations will exceed $1,300,000. The total of these two operations in 2007 was $503,795.
The last year of our lease, which is 2021, is even more impressive. Sales are $9,366,502, the
gross margin is $1,895,780 and the net profit is $1,164,815. The earnings ratio is 12.44%.
In 2005 when I presented my case for moving the store I was absolutely convinced it was the
best course of action. The old store, in my opinion, was “spinning its wheels” because we were
19
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
out of space. We could not adequately display, store or restock our merchandise. We also
could not bring in many new products which is the present culture of the retail off-sale liquor
business. At our new store we have the room to increase our sales to the $9,000,000 level, as
projected in the 8% increase spreadsheet. At the old store we were maxed out. It would have
been very difficult to sell significantly more units of merchandise per year at the old store.
I believe that these spreadsheets illustrate our potential very well. It is not likely that we will
maintain an 8% increase per year for the next 14 years. By the same token I believe that our
increase will be more than 5% per year. My best estimate is that we will fall pretty close to the
7% increase scenario. Obviously, we will probably increase sales by different percentages every
year. The reason I estimate that we will increase our sales approximately 7% per year is that
we get an automatic increase of 2-3% per year because the cost of our products goes up each
year.
The financial figures from the first quarter of 2008 further illustrate my financial projections.
Our sales for the quarter increased by $63,303. We had a very good April which added to our
year-to-date increase. It is now $120,776 through April.
I believe that these spreadsheets show that our store has a very bright financial future. The
financial figures from the first quarter of 2008 illustrate this point. As our net profits grow, I
believe that we should start a building fund for the future. As we get closer to the tenth year
of our lease we should begin negotiating a new lease with the mall owners. If we are making
the kind of money my projections say we will, there would be no reason to move provided we
can negotiate a favorable lease. If we cannot negotiate a favorable lease we will have time to
purchase land, design and build a new store. If we are prepared to do this I believe we will
have some leverage during the negotiating process. When Hy-Vee negotiated their lease the
owners of the mall knew that they were very serious about other options and gave them a very
favorable lease rate.
Besides the financial benefits of our store there are other benefits to the community. We have
a large store that is very easy to shop in. Our customers like our selection and they also like
the fact that they aren’t so cramped in our store during our busy sales days. Also, in my
opinion, we are a destination stop and we need as many destination stops as possible in
Brookings in order to improve our overall retail business in Brookings. We have seen many
new customers in our store since we opened and we feel that we are doing a better job of
keeping more off-sale business in Brookings which is a priority of our both the Chamber of
Commerce and our City Council.
In summary, we had a good year in 2007. As I stated earlier the net profit was not as high as
we want it. However, if we are patient we will make up for the shortcomings in net profit in
the near term by gaining much larger increases in future years! We picked our present location
because we expected an increase in traffic which has proven to be true. Our customer count
in 2007 was almost 6000 more than in 2005. Thus, the benefits of being located next to Hy-
Vee and on the East side of town where there is much more retail activity has been very
apparent. These benefits will be even greater for us as time goes by.
20
BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ANNUAL REPORT
OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER TOTAL
LIQUOR BEER
200,937 285,097 584,023 1,070,057
1st QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT
---------------2008--------------
Sales
Less DiscounU Paid Out
Sales (Net)
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)
Total Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT
200,937
181,024
181,024
19,913
285,097
259,521
259,521
25,576
584,023
530,934
530,934
53,089
1,070,057
971,479
971,479
98,578
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs!Retail
Total Expenses
NET OPERATING AGREEMENT INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER<
net profit margin;;net operating income/net sales
10,000
10,000
88,578
8.28%
Sales
Less DiscounU Paid Out
Sales (Net)
Cost of Sales:
Inventory January 1,(at cost)
Purchases (net)
Less Inventory March,(at cost)
Total Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT
gross profit margin=gross profiUnet sales
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL
LIQUOR WINE BEER
367,112 197,394 168,460
(5,103) (4,766)
362,009 192,628 168,460
283,000 202,072 59,010
260,557 135,249 128,468
256,662 196,305 51,906
286,895 141,016 135,572
75,114 51,612 32,888
20.75% 26.79%19.52%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Current Expenses
Personnel Costs!Retail
Personnel Costs!Operating and Malt
Capital Costs Under $5000
Depreciation Expense
Total Expenses
Add Nonoperating Revenue
Interest
Other Income
Rent
Total Other Income
RETAIL RETAIL
LOTTERY MISC
7,333 33,243
(1,400)
5,933 33,243
2,161 29,861
5,146 17,957
1,651 20,994
5,656 26,824
277 6,419
4.67%19.31%
TOTAL
773,542
(11,269)
762,273
576,104
547,377
527,518
595,963
166,310
21.82%
47,381
89,569
(10,000)
2,848
10,247
140,045
NET RETAIL INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER
Operating Transfer Out To General Fund Budgeted $400,000
Cash Balance as of March 31st.$498,736
26,265
3.45%
YEAR END FINANCIAL STATEMENT OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER TOTAL
---------------2007--------------LIQUOR BEER
Sales $801,424.95 $1,119,604.56 $2,844,278.50 $4,765,308.01
Less DiscounU Paid Out
Sales (Nel)$801,424.95 $1,119,604.56 $2,844,278.50 $4,765,308.01
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)$722,024.29 $1,019,753.27 $2,585,044.54 $4,326,822.10
Total Cost of Sales $722,024.29 $1,019,753.27 $2,585,044.54 $4,326,822.10
$0.00
GROSS PROFIT $79,400.66 $99,851.29 $259,233.96 $438,485.91
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs!Retail
Total Expenses
NET RETAIL PROFIT BEFORE TRANSFERS
Year End Financial Override (07)rt worksheet.xls
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$398,485.91
BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ANNUAL REPORT
OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER
LIQUOR BEER
801425 1,119,605 2,844,279
YEAR ENO FINANCIAL STATEMENT
---------------2007--------------
Sales
Less DiscounU Paid Out
Sales (Net)
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)
Total Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT
801,425
722,024
722,024
79,401
1,119,605
1,019,753
1,019,753
99,851
2,844,279
2,585,045
2,585,045
259,234
TOTAL
4,765,308
4,765,308
4,326,822
4,326,822
438,486
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs!Retail
Total Expenses
NET OPERATING AGREEMENT INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS
40,000
40,000
398,486
8.36%
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL
LIQUOR WINE BEER
Sales 1,515,168 836,003 725,542
Less DiscounU Paid Out -23,275 -20,746 -1
Sales (Net)1,491,892 815,257 725,541
Cost of Sales:
Inventory January 1,(at cost)317,495 198,907 47,364
Purchases (net)1,161,419 617,957 615,104
Less Inventory December 31,(at cost)283,000 202,072 59,010
Total Cost of Sales 1,195,914 614,792 603,459
GROSS PROFIT 295,978 200,465 122,082
19.84%24.59%16.83%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Current Expenses
Personnel Costsl Retail
Personnel Costsl Operating and Malt
Capital Costs Under $5000
Depreciation Expense
Total Expenses
Add Nonoperating Revenue
Interest
Other Income
Rent
Total Other Income
NET RETAIL INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER
RETAIL RETAIL
LOTIERY MISC
30,340 132,431
-6,532
23,808 132,431
1,765 27,148
23,014 109,576
2,161 29,861
22,618 106,862
1,190 25,569
5.00%19.31%
TOTAL
3,239,485
-50,554
3,188,930
592,679
2,527,070
576,104
2,543,645
645,285
20.24%
192,566
313,248
5,983
43,053
554,850
8,854
803
5,200
14,857
105,292
3.30%
Operating Transfer Out To General Fund
(Transfer to GF includes sale of liquor store property in 2006 of $300,000)
670,000
BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE ANNUAL REPORT
OPERATING OPERATING MALT BEER
LIQUOR BEER
200,937 285,097 584,023
1st QUARTER FINANCIAL STATEMENT
---------------2008--------------
Sales
Less DiscounU Paid Out
Sales (Net)
Cost of Sales:
Purchases (net)
Total Cost of Sales
GROSS PROFIT
200,937
181,024
181,024
19,913
285,097
259,521
259,521
25,576
584,023
530,934
530,934
53,089
TOTAL
1,070,057
1,070,057
971,479
971,479
98,578
OPERATING EXPENSES
Personnel Costs!Retail
Total Expenses
NET OPERATING AGREEMENT INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS
net profit margin =net operating income/net sales
10,000
10,000
88,578
8.28%
RETAIL RETAIL
RETAIL
LIQUOR WtNE BEER
Sales 367,112 197,394 168,460
Less Discount!Paid Out (5,103) (4,766)
Sales (Net)362,009 192,628 168,460
Cost of Sales:
Inventory January 1,(at cost)283,000 202,072 59,010
Purchases (net)260,557 135,249 128,468
Less Inventory March,(at cost)256,662 196,305 51,906
Total Cost of Sales 286,895 141,016 135,572
GROSS PROFIT
gross profit margin=gross profit/net sales
75,114 51,612
20.75% 26.79%
OPERATING EXPENSES
Current Expenses
Personnel Costsl Retail
Personnel Costsl Operating and Malt
Capital Costs Under $5000
Depreciation Expense
Total Expenses
Add Nonoperating Revenue
Interest
Other Income
Rent
Total Other Income
32,888
19.52%
RETAIL RETAIL
TOTAL
LOTTERY MiSe
7,333 33,243 773,542
(1,400)(11,269)
5,933 33,243 762,273
2,161 29,861 576,104
5,146 17,957 547,377
1,651 20,994 527,518
5,656 26,824 595,963
277 6,419 166,310
4.67%19.31%21.82%
47,381
89,569
(10,000)
2,848
10,247
140,045
NET RETAIL INCOME BEFORE TRANSFER
Operating Transfer Out To General Fund
26,265
3.45%
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,348,375 $3,515,794 $3,691,584 $3,876,163
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $677,711 $711,597 $747,177 $784,535
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $133,489 $179,960 $198,913 $219,112 $240,629
Earnings Ratio 4.19 5.37 5.66 5.94 6.21
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$4,069,971 $4,273,470 $4,487,143 $4,711,501 $4,947,076
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $823,762 $864,950 $908,198 $953,608 $1,001,288
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $263,539 $287,920 $313,857 $341,436 $370,751
Earnings Ratio 6.48 6.74 6.99 7.25 7.49
SCENARIO( 5% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (5% Inc per YR)$5,194,429 $5,454,151 $5,726,858 $6,013,201 $6,313,861
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,051,352 $1,103,920 $1,159,116 $1,217,072 $1,277,926
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $401,900 $434,984 $470,112 $507,397 $546,961
Earnings Ratio 7.74 7.98 8.21 8.44 8.66
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,380,265 $3,583,081 $3,798,065 $4,025,949
Gross Profit 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $684,166 $725,216 $768,728 $814,852
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $133,489 $186,414 $212,532 $240,664 $270,946
Earnings Ratio 4.19 5.51 5.93 6.34 6.73
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$4,267,506 $4,523,557 $4,794,970 $5,082,668 $5,387,628
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $863,743 $915,568 $970,502 $1,028,732 $1,090,456
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $303,520 $338,538 $376,161 $416,561 $459,919
Earnings Ratio 7.11 7.48 7.84 8.20 8.54
SCENARIO (6% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (6% Inc per YR)$5,710,886 $6,053,539 $6,416,752 $6,801,757 $7,209,862
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,155,883 $1,225,236 $1,298,751 $1,376,676 $1,459,276
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $506,431 $556,300 $609,746 $667,001 $728,311
Earnings Ratio 8.87 9.19 9.50 9.81 10.10
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,412,154 $3,651,005 $3,906,575 $4,180,035
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $690,620 $738,963 $790,691 $846,039
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $192,869 $226,279 $262,626 $302,133
Earnings Ratio 5.65 6.20 6.72 7.23
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$4,472,638 $4,785,723 $5,120,723 $5,479,174 $5,862,716
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $905,262 $968,630 $1,036,434 $1,108,985 $1,186,614
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $345,038 $391,600 $442,093 $496,813 $556,077
Earnings Ratio 7.71 8.18 8.63 9.07 9.48
SCENARIO (7% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (7% Inc per YR)$6,273,106 $6,712,223 $7,182,079 $7,684,825 $8,222,762
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,269,677 $1,358,554 $1,453,653 $1,555,409 $1,664,287
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $620,224 $689,618 $764,648 $845,734 $933,322
Earnings Ratio 9.89 10.27 10.65 11.01 11.35
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$3,188,929 $3,444,043 $3,719,567 $4,017,132 $4,338,503
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $697,074 $752,840 $813,068 $878,113
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $199,323 $240,156 $285,003 $334,206
Earnings Ratio 5.79 6.46 7.09 7.70
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$4,685,583 $5,060,430 $5,465,264 $5,902,485 $6,374,684
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $948,362 $1,024,231 $1,106,169 $1,194,663 $1,290,236
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $388,138 $447,201 $511,828 $582,491 $659,699
Earnings Ratio 8.28 8.84 9.37 9.87 10.35
SCENARIO (8% INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail (8% Inc per YR)$6,884,659 $7,435,431 $8,030,266 $8,672,687 $9,366,502
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,393,455 $1,504,931 $1,625,326 $1,755,352 $1,895,780
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $744,002 $835,995 $936,321 $1,045,677 $1,164,815
Earnings Ratio 10.81 11.24 11.66 12.06 12.44
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$3,188,929 $3,488,929 $3,788,929 $4,088,929 $4,388,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $645,284 $706,159 $766,879 $827,599 $888,319
Current Expenses (3% Inc)$198,549 $204,505 210,641 216,960 223,469
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)$313,246 $293,246 302,043 311,105 320,438
Net Profit $208,408 $254,195 $299,535 $344,413
Earnings Ratio 5.97 6.71 7.33 7.85
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$4,688,929 $4,988,929 $5,288,929 $5,588,929 $5,888,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $949,039 $1,009,759 $1,070,479 $1,131,199 $1,191,919
Current Expenses (3% Inc)230,173 237,078 244,190 251,516 259,061
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)330,051 339,952 350,151 360,656 371,475
Net Profit $388,816 $432,729 $476,138 $519,028 $561,383
Earnings Ratio 8.29 8.67 9.00 9.29 9.53
SCENARIO (300K INC/YEAR)2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Retail ($300k Inc/YR)$6,188,929 $6,488,929 $6,788,929 $7,088,929 $7,388,929
Gross Profit %0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024 0.2024
Gross Profit $1,252,639 $1,313,359 $1,374,079 $1,434,799 $1,495,519
Current Expenses (3% Inc)266,833 274,838 283,083 291,576 300,323
Personnel Expenses (3% Inc)382,620 394,098 405,921 418,099 430,642
Net Profit $603,186 $644,423 $685,075 $725,125 $764,554
Earnings Ratio 9.75 9.93 10.09 10.23 10.35
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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. Economic Development Land Transfer Value.
This agenda item is per Council Member McClemans request on May 27th
for a review of the City’s economic development land transfer value
process.
Al Heuton, BEDC Director, will be at the meeting to respond to questions.
Enclosures:
o Res. 79-04 (Market Value for Industrial Property)
o “Land Request Process” from Brookings Economic Development
Corporation
Estimated Time (15 minutes)
30
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
RESOLUTION NO. 79-04
CITY OF BROOKINGS, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOKTA
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is the owner of certain tracts of real estate in Telkamp Industrial
Addition and in Weise Business Park that are available to be sold for private industrial or
commercial development; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brookings and that of prospective developers
and others that the estimated market value of said property be determined from time to time to
aid in considering the sale price thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings,
South Dakota as follows:
That the estimated market value of properties located in Telkamp Industrial Addition and Weise
Business Park, all in the City of Brookings, South Dakota be determined by formal appraisal or
informal market evaluation periodically and prior to the actual sale of any of such property.
That this resolution shall supersede any and all prior resolutions and ordinances in conflict with or
inconsistent with this resolution.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota this 14th day of
December 2004.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk
31
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Land Request Process
(From Al Heuton, BEDC – 06/05/08)
Requests to purchase city owned property in Brookings industrial and commercial parks are
processed through Brookings Economic Development Corporation (BEDC). The City must
either transfer land through BEDC or conduct a sealed bid process open and advertised to the
general public. The request process generally follows the steps described below:
1. Business approaches BEDC with interest in acquiring land.
2. BEDC will assist the industry/business with collection of information required to
prepare a land request proposal and to complete an incentive scorecard, if a land
incentive is requested.
o The request proposal outlines the case for sale of land to the business.
o The scorecard provides information that allows BEDC to complete a
benefit/cost analysis of the projects economic impact on the community.
o The benefit/cost analysis and the request proposal assist the city council in
determining the value of land incentive, if any, that may be provided.
3. The completed land request proposal is reviewed with the business to ensure no
proprietary information is presented in a public forum. Company names and/or details
that might allow the company to be recognized will be removed from the presentation
to the city council upon request of the business.
4. When the request proposal is completed BEDC will contact the city clerk and city
manager to place the request on the next available city council agenda.
5. The land request is a request from BEDC, not the business. Therefore, BEDC will
present the request to the city council. The business is welcome to participate in the
request presentation if desired.
6. Upon approval of the request, or amended request, the city attorney will prepare the
necessary land closing and transfer documents and conduct the sale. BEDC will
prepare a Memorandum of Understanding between BEDC and the business regarding
details of the sale. (BEDC generally requires the business to cover applicable closing
costs. If desired by the business, the business may purchase title insurance at the
businesses expense.
7. After approval of the land transfer resolution from the City to BEDC there is a 20-day
referendum waiting period that must be observed before the land closing can occur.
32
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Land Request – General Outline
Following is a general narrative outline BEDC will use to make the land request to the City
Council.
Project Request:
Brief summary of the request: location and number of acres of land, purpose of the project and
requested land price.
Project History:
Summary of company history in the community – facility type, headquarters location,
product/service type, years in community, current employment, wage summary, occupations,
employee place of residence, etc.
Proposed Project:
General description of business/industry growth projection, number of jobs to be
created/retained, timetable, capital investment, etc.
Economic Impact:
A chart similar to the following is used to provide a general benefit/cost analysis. Information
requested to complete the incentive scorecard is used to determine the economic impact.
Economic Impact Summary
Benefit/Cost Description Benefit to
Community
Cost to Community
Land – Initial Land Offering $61,000.00
Land – Current request $16,650
Road Improvement $102,000
Job Creation 250 total employees/
approx. 200 FTE’s
Average Wage $10-$13/hour range
Estimated Annual Payroll $3,750,000
Estimated Payroll to Brookings
County residents
$2,550,000
Net Annual Benefit $2,620,260 $179,650
Benefit at 5 years $13,101,260 $179,650
33
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
34
Impact Assessment Possible Points Score
Total FTE Count (est. total payroll ____________)
Under 10 2
10 to 20 4
21 to 50 8
Over 50 10
Non-Management Avg. Pay Rate (FTE _____ est. payroll____________)
Under $8 2
$8 to $10 4
$9 to $11 6
$11 to $13 8
Over $13 10
25k to 50k 4
51k to 75k 8
Over 75k 10
High 1
Medium 5
Low 10
Benefit Package
Health Care
Retirement
Volatile 0
Moderate 5
Stable 10
Start-up 5
Satellite 5
Relocation (incl. HQ) 10
Existing Industry Retention or Expansion 10
<200k 2
200k-500k 4
500k-1M 6
1M – 2M 8
Over 2M 10
Value of Construction Phase & Community Impact 0 to 10
Sales Tax Generation 0 to 10
SDSU Alliance/Graduate Retention 0 to 10
Potential for Spin-off/Supplier Firms 0 to 10
Diversifies Economic Base 0 to 10
Total Score 130
Incentive Scorecard
Firm:
Employment Impact
Competition for Existing Labor Pool
Management Avg. Annual Salary (FTE _____ est. payroll ___________)
Industry/Firm Stability
Nature of Firm’s Brookings Location
Real Estate Tax Generation (assessed value)
0 to 10
Industry/Firm Characteristics
Community Impact
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Information needed to complete the scorecard includes:
• Total number of full-time employee equivalents (FTE’s) and total payroll.
• Number of Non-management FTE’s and average wage.
• Number of Management FTE’s and average wage.
• Description of the benefit package provide – health care, retirement, other.
• Value of new construction.
• Value of taxable equipment to be purchased.
• Use of SDSU students or graduates in the labor force.
• Supply or value-added relationships with other community business or industry.
It would also be helpful to have some information depicting the company’s involvement in the
community.
As previously mentioned, BEDC staff are available to assist the business with preparation of this
information and will prepare the narrative for presentation to the city council.
Please contact BEDC with any questions or assistance needs.
Al Heuton, Executive Director
Brookings Economic Development Corporation
P.O. Box 431
Brookings, SD 57006
Phone: 605-697-8103
FAX: 605-697-8109
e-mail: bedc@brookings.net
35
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Exhibit “A”
________________________________________
Property Description:
Grantee agrees to utilize the above-described property solely for the purposes of
development of a manufacturing facility for _______. In the event Grantee does not develop
the property within three (3) years of the recording date of this Warranty Deed, Grantee,
upon request of the Brookings Economic Development Corporation, shall re-convey said
property free from liens and encumbrances to the Brookings Economic Development
Corporation for consideration not to exceed the original purchase price of the above described
property.
Should Grantee desire to subdivide and sell all or part of any undeveloped portions of
the property at a later date, Grantee shall notify Brookings Economic Development
Corporation and because the undeveloped land originally was conveyed to _______ at a
reduced price, Grantee agrees to reimburse the Brookings Economic Development
Corporation for the value of the land, based on its undeveloped condition, in the amount of
$______ per acre, with the price to be pro-rated based upon the actual number of acres sold.
Should Grantee desire to sell the developed property within ten (10) years of the
recording date, Grantee shall notify Brookings Economic Development Corporation and
because the developed land originally was conveyed to _______ at a reduced price, Grantee
agrees to reimburse the Brookings Economic Development Corporation for the value of the
land as follows:
a. $_______ per acre if sold during years one (1) to five (5) following the date of closing.
b. $______ per acre if sold during year six (6) following the date of closing.
c. $______ per acre if sold during year seven (7) following the date of closing.
d. $______ per acre if sold during year eight (8) following the date of closing.
e. $______ per acre if sold during year nine (9) following the date of closing.
f. $______ per acre of sold during year ten (10) following the date of closing.
Grantor agrees to permit Grantee’s lender to have priority over the Covenants and
Restrictions contained herein and, accordingly, Grantor has agreed to execute a subordination
agreement, however the Grantor and Grantee agree the foregoing Covenants and Restrictions
shall run with the land and be binding on Grantee’s successors and assigns.
36
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Land Terms/Development Cost/Incentives/Buyer Performance
Land Purchase Cost
Telkamp & Weise = $2,500/acre
Svennes = $18,000/acre
Land Development Cost
For a 41’ wide street (32nd Ave)
$200/foot (today’s cost) for street including storm sewer, paving, striping
$30/foot – water main
$30/foot – sewer main
City Land Sale Policy
$1/SF – negotiable
Note: City land investment cost varies as does infrastructure investment. For example, land
costs vary from $2,500 per acre to $18,000 acre. On some parcels the City paid to install
infrastructure (which should be built into land sale) and on some parcels BMU installed the
infrastructure in which case they charge a foot frontage or area fee. Storm sewer, if installed, is
a city cost. Roads are generally a city cost, but in some cases (portions of Prince Drive and 32nd
Avenue) grants have been obtained to pay for up to 80% of the road infrastructure cost.
Land Incentive Note: In two cases over the last few years communities competing for
relocation or expansion projects of Brookings industries have offered free land and utilities to
the door.
Buyer Performance: All projects are evaluated based upon a capital investment and job
creation economic impact versus city investment in property. The information collected during
the application process is provided by the business. Past policy has not required verification of
capital investment cost or job creation. This could be done with penalties for non-performance
attached if desired. (However, please keep in mind that a general policy may place us in a
difficult competitive position for projects.)
37
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 27, 2008 minutes.
C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
D. Action to approve the City Council’s Goals.
E. Action to hold a special Council meeting on June 17, 2008.
F. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with First Planning District to
provide grant administrative services.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
8. Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
9. Ordinance No. 28-08: Budget Amendment - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing
A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For
Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: June 24th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on the annual Malt Beverage Renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Action on Resolution No. 46-08, awarding bids for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. Action to appoint the Deputy Mayor.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
13. Action on a revised preliminary plat of portions of BlairHill and BlairHill Second Addition.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of Brookings:
A. Action on Resolution No. 45-08, a Resolution Declaring Boundaries, and
Recommending Creation Of Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City Of
Brookings.
B. Action to approve the PROJECT PLAN for Tax Incremental District Number Three (3),
City of Brookings.
C. Action to approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for Tax Incremental District
Number Three (3), City of Brookings.
15. Discussion of financing plan for Innovation Campus.
Informational
16. Adjourn.
38
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
6. Council Invites & Obligations
June 7th
Sunday
Habitat
Dedication Ceremony
1:00 pm
June 10th
Tuesday
2010 Annual Meeting
9-11 am
Watertown
June 10th
Tuesday
City Council
5 pm
June 12th
Thursday
Tour de Kota
5:45 pm
June 13th
Friday
Relay for Life
5:00 pm
Larson Park
June 17th
Tuesday
Special City Council Meeting
On Storm Water Drainage Plan
4-6 pm
City Hall
June 24th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
City Hall
June 29-
July 1
Sunday-
Tuesday
NLC Conference
Rapid City
July 4th
Friday
PARADE!
2:00 pm
Brookings
July 8th
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
Brookings
July 11th
Friday
Elected Officials Workshop
9:30 to 3 pm
Pierre
Ramkota
July 22nd
Tuesday
City Council
5:00 pm
Brookings
39
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
40
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 27, 2008 minutes.
C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
D. Action to approve the City Council’s Goals.
E. Action to hold a special Council meeting on June 17, 2008.
F. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with First Planning District to
provide grant administrative services.
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.
8. Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
9. Ordinance No. 28-08: Budget Amendment - An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing
A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For
Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Public Hearing: June 24th
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on the annual Malt Beverage Renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
11. Action on Resolution No. 46-08, awarding bids for 2008-08STI, Street Maintenance Project.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
12. Action to appoint the Deputy Mayor.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
13. Action on a revised preliminary plat of portions of BlairHill and BlairHill Second Addition.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of Brookings:
A. Action on Resolution No. 45-08, a Resolution Declaring Boundaries, and
Recommending Creation Of Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City Of
Brookings.
B. Action to approve the PROJECT PLAN for Tax Incremental District Number Three (3),
City of Brookings.
C. Action to approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for Tax Incremental District
Number Three (3), City of Brookings.
15. Discussion of financing plan for Innovation Campus.
Informational
16. Adjourn.
41
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve the May 27, 2008 minutes.
C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
D. Action to approve the City Council’s Goals.
E. Action to hold a special Council meeting on June 17, 2008.
F. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with First
Planning District to provide grant administrative services.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
42
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the City Council’s May 27, 2008 meeting is enclosed for council
review and action.
43
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Brookings City Council
May 27, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall
with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley
(left at 6:30 p.m.), Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, Mike McClemans, and Tom
Bezdichek. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari
Thornes were also present.
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 gave a PowerPoint presentation and responded to questions.
Classroom to Community: using HSC 494 to provide community wellness programming
Physical Inactivity:
Physical activity (or inactivity) in America
– 55% of adults don’t get enough activity
– 25% are sedentary
As a result…
– 2/3 of the adult population in the US is overweight and 1/3 of them are obese
• 25% in South Dakota (From healthyamericans.org)
– 7% of the adult population in the US is diabetic
– Physical inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle lead to 1: cardiovascular diseases which includes
congestive heart failure, hypertension, atherosclerosis, hypercholesterolemia, cardiomyopathy,
coronary heart disease; 2: metabolic disorders including diabetes, obesity and being overweight;
3: cancer including, but not limited to breast, colon, prostate, and lung; 4: pulmonary diseases
such as emphysema, chronic bronchitis and asthma; 5: psychological disorders like depression,
mood, anxiety; 6: musculoskeletal disorders that can range from low back pain, osteoarthritis,
bone fractures and connective tissue tears, to osteoporosis.
Benefits of regular physical activity include:
– Prevention of cardiac events
– Reduced incidence of stroke, HPT, type 2 diabetes, colon and breast cancers, osteoporotic
fractures, gallbladder disease, obesity, depression, and anxiety
– Delayed mortality
44
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
ACSM (2007)
– To promote and maintain health, all healthy adults aged 18-65 yrs need the following:
– ≥ 30 min of moderate intensity aerobic exercise (64-76% HRmax) 5 d/wk, or…
– ≥ 20 min of vigorous intensity exercise (77-93% HRmax) 3 d/wk.
– Combinations of moderate and vigorous intensity activity can be performed to meet this
recommendation.
– Examples of moderate amounts of physical activity – this list contains examples of moderate
amounts of physical activity. (A moderate amount of physical activity is roughly that which uses
approximately 150 kcal energy per day, or 1000kcal per week. Some activities can be
performed at various intensities; the suggested durations correspond to expected intensity of
effort.) More vigorous activities, such as stair-climbing and running, require less time (15
minutes). On the other hand, less vigorous activities, like washing and waxing the car, require
more time (45 to 60 minutes).
• Less vigorous, more time: washing and waxing a car for 45-60 min, washing windows
or floors for 45-60 min, playing volleyball for 45 min, playing touch football for 30-45
min, gardening for 30-45 min, wheeling self in wheelchair for 30-40 min, walking 1.75
miles (2.8 km) in 35 min (20 min/mile pace), basketball (shooting baskets) for 30 min,
bicycling 5 miles (8.0) for 30 min, dancing fast (social) for 30 min, pushing a stroller
1.5 miles (2.4 km) for 30 min, raking leaves for 30 min, walking 2 miles (3.2 km) in
30 min (15 min/mile pace), and water aerobics for 30 min.
• More vigorous, less time: swimming laps for 20 min, playing wheelchair basketball for
20 min, playing basketball for 15-20 min, bicycling 4 miles (6.4 km) in 15 min,
jumping rope for 15 min, running 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in 15 min (10min/mile pace),
shoveling snow for 15 min, and stair walking for 15 min.
*Data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996, Physical Activity and
Health: A Report of the Surgeon General—At a Glance (Washington, D.C.: Author), 2.
– The Activity Pyramid:
• Cut down on surfing the web, playing video games, watching TV
• 2-3 times a week (at least 20 minutes) – 1: leisure activities – miniature golf/golf,
volleyball, bowling, or dancing; 2: strength & flexibility – push ups/curl ups, martial arts
(Karate, Judo), lifting weights, or yoga
• 3-5 times a week (at least 20 minutes) – 1: aerobic exercise – skating/skateboarding,
running, swimming, brisk walking, or biking; 2: recreational activities – tennis, hiking,
soccer, or basketball
• Everyday (as much as possible) – take the stairs, walk instead of drive/ride, do work
around the house, walk the dog or play outside.
Strides to a Healthier Community
• Strides to a Healthier Community (STHC)
– South Dakota Department of Health
• Five strategies to prevent obesity and chronic disease
– Increase fruit and vegetable intake
– Decrease TV viewing
– Caloric intake and quality of diet
– Increased PA
– Promote breast feeding
• Suggestions for implementing these strategies are contained in STHC
– See STHC pgs 19-22
– http://www.healthysd.gov/documents/StrideCommunity.pdf
HSC 494
• HSC 494- Internship in Health Promotion
45
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
– This course is designed to provide practical experience in a variety of aspects of health
promotion in a professional environment.
– Each student will be assigned duties that aid in providing wellness services to the Brookings
community to accomplish this goal
– All students will be under the supervision of the Health Promotion Faculty
• Proposed HSC 494 involvement with Brookings community wellness
– Individual fitness consultations
• Personal fitness evaluations
• Body composition, blood work, CV fitness
• Basic exercise programming
• Aerobic and resistance exercise
• Tracking with Personal Health Journal
• www.healthysd.gov
– Health Promotion topics addressed through the academic year…with the intention of creating a
year round program.
• Student developed monthly newsletter
• weekly motivational emails
• Monthly community presentations and workshops addressing wellness related topics
– Development of programming in conjunction with STHC
• Implement programs pertaining to the five strategies to prevent obesity and chronic
disease outlined in STHC
• Initially, focus will be placed on increasing PA and improving dietary habits
Necessary Resources
• Financial assistance
– To cover blood work as part of the initial screening process
– To help with marketing of the community wellness program, as well as monthly workshops and
presentations
– To set up a database for all participants to track data
– Establish internship opportunities for students
• Important for year round programming
Projected Outcomes
• The program as currently defined would address the following strategies for increased PA outlined in
STHC
– Conduct community-wide healthy eating and PA special events, fitness consulting, and media
campaigns
– Promote sustained PA lifestyles for adults
– Provide information promoting PA and current opportunities to participate
Future Direction
• Create a fully functional Community Wellness program directed by Health Promotion students
providing…
– Community activities and events addressing all five strategies to prevent obesity and chronic
disease
– Group as well as individual instruction
– Education regarding all aspects of wellness
– Support and encouragement
– Collaborative opportunities with other community groups
Munsterman said this is a great opportunity for Brookings citizens to have personalized
attention for wellness and requested Council support towards this project which may include
46
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
financial assistance. A few years ago the City participated in the “buddy program” and
provided some financial assistance for lab testing.
In addition to SDSU, another partner in this new program could include the Brookings Health
Systems. The subcommittee was asked to approach the Hospital and members of the Council
will provide assistance if needed.
It was noted that the City Park and Recreation programs will be key in this program (ie. lifestyle
activities, bike path) and there may be ways to partner and integrate programs.
The group was asked to come back to the City Council to report on issues, policies and
barriers.
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 City
Manager reviewed a draft City’s Capital Project Prioritization and Goals for 2008 developed as a
result of that session. The Capital Project Prioritization was 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.
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.
Reed thanked Al Heuton for making all the appointment arrangements, noting the group had
more appointments this year than the previous year.
Bartley said the conference is overwhelming with 40,000 participants. He feels it is important
to make a commitment to attend the conference for five years in order to see benefits. The
group was already ahead of the average number of appointments for year two.
Weldon said it’s hard to quantify a conference like this when trying to gauge results, measure
outcomes, and assess value. Understanding that this is a five year commitment is important.
It’s a game of “inches” like football. He said the group plans to meet to debrief and develop
strategy steps to build upon the investment made.
Government Access Channel Policy. The Council reviewed a draft Government Access
Channel policy on March 11th. The policy is modeled after the City of Sioux Falls’ CityLink
47
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Channel policy and addresses the management of the site and appropriate programming
content.
In her report, Thornes noted that 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.
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. Thornes said she has asked for public comment regarding
the schedule, but did not receive any recommendations for changes.
Thornes said for those who don’t have Mediacom, the meetings can also now be viewed on the
city website. She noted that that these are not live stream. She noted that ITC is also
interested in rebroadcasting the meetings on their channel.
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. Thornes said at that time 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 has looked at would be to use a hosted service for a while. The host
would provide all bandwidth needed and link to the stream. Fifty users could log in and there’d
be no crashes. If the Council wanted to pursue that route, she recommended the usage be
monitored for 3-4 months to determine how many use the system. Hosting 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). The Council agreed to proceed with live stream
for four months to assess the interest.
48
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
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.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to authorize live streaming the
council meeting on the website for the next four months. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
The Council will take formal action to adopt the policy on June 10th.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to approve the
consent agenda. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Bezdichek, to amend the agenda
to add as Item #22A, action to remove Resolution No. 29-08 from the table, a liquor operating
agreement for BraVo’s. All present voted yes on the amendment.
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
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 to appoint Rob Peterson as the SDSU appointment to the Swiftel Center
Advisory Committee.
F. Action on Resolution No. 40-08, a Resolution to award bids for the 2008-01SWR,
Sidewalk Repair Project.
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.
On the motion as amended, all present voted yes; motion carried.
49
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 18-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to
approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 19-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Bartley, to
approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 20-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner,
to approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 21-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to
approve 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. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 22-08. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to
approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 23-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley,
to approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 24-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner,
to approve Ordinance No. 24-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Vehicle
Windshield and Front Window Obstructions in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 25-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to
approve Ordinance No. 25-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting Certain
Vehicle Windshield Sun Screening Devices in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All present
voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 26-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to
approve Ordinance No. 26-08, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations Prohibiting the
Operation of Improperly Repaired or Adjusted Vehicles in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
50
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
2nd Reading – Ordinance No. 27-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner,
to approve Ordinance No. 27-08, an Ordinance Prohibiting Graffiti and Establishing Procedures
for Removal of Graffiti in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 39-08. A public hearing and action was held 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). No comments
were received. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to approve Res. 39-08. All
present voted yes; motion carried.
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”) asphalt 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.
(Whaley left at 6:30 p.m.)
51
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Resolution No. 43-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to approve
Resolution No. 43-08, in support of the Safe Route to School grant project. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
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.
Resolution No. 41-08. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to approve
Resolution No. 41-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (CCO#1) for 2008-03SSI
Downtown Streetscape Project. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 41-08
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.
Resolution No. 42-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to approve
Resolution No. 42-08, Resolution Authorizing Change Order #1 (Final) for 2007-09BR, Indian
Hills Pedestrian Bridge Project. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 42-08
A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#1 Final) For
2007-09BR Indian Hills Pedestrian Bridge
Mills Construction, Brookings, SD
52
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
Resolution No. 44-08 – Real Estate Purchase. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded
by Reed, to approve 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). All present voted yes; motion carried.
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.
ADDITION: Action to Remove Resolution No. 29-08 from the Table. A motion
was made by Bartley, seconded by Bezdichek, to remove Res. 29-08 from the table. All
present voted yes. Original Motion – April 15, 2008: “Motion was made by Bartley, seconded
by Thomson, to approve Resolution No. 29-08, a resolution authorizing the city manager to
enter into a liquor operating agreement with BraVo’s on a temporary basis until the new
restaurant licenses are issued.”
53
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Bartley referenced the April 29th agenda meeting packet noting a recommendation from Jeffrey
Weldon, City Manager, which read: …“I would recommend you award the new restricted restaurant
licenses to the Shamrock and BraVo’s once state law and local ordinances are in place. Since several
bar establishments were represented at the last meeting and were primarily interested in the crafting of
our local ordinance regarding the new restricted licenses, I suggest we allow the City Attorney to finish
his work and consider this issue separately from awarding the last unrestricted license. The process is
not well-served by confusing the two.”
Bartley said he would make the argument that these are two separate issues and started the
process to issue this last unrestricted license and the Council got a little caught up in SB126 and
other issues. He would like to go back to issuing this license on a temporary basis as the
resolution states and we can certainly read that resolution if members don’t remember it.
Basically, it does require that temporary license be issued until the new license for restaurants
is available and at which time they would have to apply. This one would basically be not valid
anymore because the ordinance states that. It’s not a question of taking it back; it states in the
resolution that if the licenses are available, they must apply for it. Any applicant can make that
decision at that time that they didn’t want to apply for the restaurant license and lose that
license or apply for it on a restricted basis. He thinks there’s plenty of safeguards for anybody
that has a temporary license in this temporary case. The resolution is to issue it to BraVo’s.
He encouraged the Council at this time to take action to issue it to BraVo’s and will take action
on SB 126; the subcommittee was put together to study 126 and craft the ordinance and bring
it back to the Council along with four house bills with some liquor issues. We have a
subcommittee that will be meeting as soon as City Attorney Britzman has some more
information for us to work with and then we’ll go from there. They are two different and
separate issues and he would encourage the Council to pass this resolution this evening.
Reed asked the City Manager when he puts together the committee, will the priority be to look
at SB126 (restaurant licenses) first. Weldon said it was his understanding that the direction
from the Council was to look at the provisions of 126 with the eye of working towards the
ordinance would need to effectuate 126 for our needs.
Reed asked if that was the priority, since there will be 4 or 5 different liquor issues the
subcommittee will be looking at. Will the priority be to look at 126 from the committee?
Weldon said it was his intent to recommend to the committee that the priority be and the first
bill we talk about is SB126.
Munsterman said he wasn’t really sure what has changed from our last discussion. In his
opinion, the discussion around 126 affects liquor licenses in general and what we do with them,
at least in his mind. For him, he doesn’t know that anything has changed until we do have
more discussion on the subcommittee level to bring back to the Council. He asked Britzman if
he had anything new in terms of pricing on what the new restaurant license pricing will be. He
asked if the city attorney had anything further to add for tonight’s discussion.
Britzman said no, he didn’t. He noted that the first class municipal attorneys met and none of
them are involved in that type of issue. So, their discussion touched on what their current
market value is for their licenses. But that discussion was kind of irrelevant to the
54
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
considerations that we would have in Brookings, in his opinion. He has not heard yet from
State Department of Revenue, but would intend to bring something to the subcommittee
meeting hopefully from the Department of Revenue on that particular issue. Otherwise, the
new information that he has it that with SB 126 we did discuss the basic provisions of 126 and
the overhead that he used at the last meeting was discussed by the municipal attorneys. They
had nothing to add or correct as to that overhead memo. He said the Council has pretty much
the guidelines on SB126. We may refine a few things in terms as to providing a little additional
insider descriptions to the provisions in the ordinance and that will be ready as soon as the
subcommittee can be scheduled to meet. He will bring that to the subcommittee meeting.
Munsterman said that sounds good and that it sounds like we have more work to do.
Bezdichek said when we talk about temporary, when does that term expire on a temporary –
in July, with other licenses, or 12 months from now? When is the expiration when a temporary
license is issued?
Bartley said as you read the ordinance, it is very clear, this agreement is effective on the date of
execution and ends upon the 30 days notice by the city to the “manager.” In any event, ending
no later than the earliest date the city is legally able to issue full-service restaurant licenses
under the 2008 full service on-sale legislation. It says, until we (the City) get our work done,
which we know may be challenged and may take longer. But it basically says when it’s available
and when the Council has gotten through the entire process of writing it, which is not July 1st
because it has to go through an approval process as any of our ordinances will. That it has to
go through the challenge that is possible with any ordinance that we create after that and then
at that point if there is a challenge of any of the sort, we could lose the ordinance completely at
that point and then this one still stays in effect until we do have a fully able to issue restaurant
licenses. We could take action later on to move it from a restricted agreement at that time to
something different if we wanted to issue the operating agreement with some restrictions on it
on our own, basically a 60/40 food request or something of that nature, we could certainly do
that at a later date if we’re not successful in getting the restaurant licenses through an
ordinance process. But he doesn’t think that is going to be an impossible thing to do and he
thinks the public would certainly support the restaurant license issue. It basically doesn’t have a
deadline until we get our work done. He doesn’t want to tie a deadline into it because it’s a
bad business move to tie a deadline into something and have someone make an investment in
what it takes to provide those services within a restaurant and then have an arbitrary date that
it drops dead because we haven’t gotten our work finished.
Reed asked about section 5 of the lease in the last sentence: “The agreement shall terminate
upon 30 days notice by the city to the manager and no later than the earliest date that the city is able
to issue a full service restaurant license under the newly enacted 2008 legislation.”. When we do
have those restaurant licenses available, is it just automatic that the license would stop?
Britzman said yes; that was the intent in drafting that so that date will be clear and would be
then probably put in the form of a letter to the temporary holder of that operating agreement
as to that date. We’ll know the date because have second reading. We’ll be able to determine
when the publication date would be for the second reading and we’ll know at the point 20 days
after publication whether or not that ordinance is valid and effective or not. In a sense, we will
55
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
have a back-up procedure with 30 days notice in case there’s any question. The 30 day notice
would also be an option for the city council.
Mike Bailey Jr, The Shamrock, said going back to previous meetings how this got delayed and
how the city started entering into a contract or operating agreement with BraVo’s was under
the assumption that the Shamrock was going to qualify for these special event licenses, which
they might or might not, but it’s not a guarantee. Some of the other businesses in town
threatened legal action if the city entered into a contract with the Shamrock. But the whole
operating agreement with BraVo’s was started under those pretenses. Besides the liquor issue
in the past few months of this year, one of the biggest issues has been trying to bring economic
impact to the City of Brookings with the Swifter Center expansion and even tonight the
Council is going to entertain a bid to validate Compass Management’s feasibility study for the
expansion. From listening to the Chamber of Commerce’s reports and the Compass
Management’s reports on the feasibility study for the expansion, he said he wanted to bring a
couple things out in the open. Does the Council realize how much money is lost when an
event doesn’t get attracted to Brookings? It’s all about the economic impact and based on the
Chamber of Commerce’s numbers, each event that we lose from out of town amounts to
about $25,000 of economic impact in the businesses besides the Shamrock, or the Swiftel
Center or the Brookings Inn. Ever since this situation started a couple months ago with them
almost getting a liquor license and then not, they had a few events that were waiting on them to
get a liquor license and if they didn’t get it, the event was going to other places out of town.
Since then, they’ve also had several events that they’ve lost since they’ve not been able to offer
hard liquor. It doesn’t just hurt their business now. The last presentation he made, between
now and July, they’d accomplish approximately $20,000 to $30,000 in hard liquor sales. It
affects their business nine months to 2 years in advance. There are a lot of these largest
conventions that one of the only ways they’re going to come to Brookings is if they can have
cocktails at social hour. They went through their first small wedding reception last weekend.
To back up the numbers he had in his previous presentations, they had a 140 people and
approximately $1000 of beer sales and they had a lot of requests for hard liquor. It affects the
community of Brookings in a couple of different ways: immediately with the events they have
booked there is a lot of tax revenue that the city is losing and economic impact for future
events that won’t come to them if they can’t offer the hard liquor. It seems to him the best
decision the Council has to make with this last remaining hard liquor license is what is the best
use for it right now, because if they wait for these new ones to become available it could be
tied up in court for a year. It could be two years down the road before anything is decided
with this because all the rest of the hard liquor license owners, licensed operators in town, are
really complaining about this. He said he wanted to bring it up that it’s real important to City
that the Shamrock be able to offer hard liquor.
Weldon said to Bailey that “you can’t lose what never had, you never had this license and you
haven’t lost anything.” Bailey said they are losing some sales, but the City is losing economic
impact because a lot of these events he is talking about – they love “our” facility. He said he
knew all of the Council has been in there (Shamrock). They’ve had comments from people
throughout the Midwest and from other countries that their facility is beautiful. A lot of these
events, it’s either the Shamrock or they are not coming to Brookings.
56
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Weldon said we’ve lost some business at the Swiftel Center because some weddings have left
the Swiftel and gone to the Shamrock. That’s fine and he doesn’t have a problem with that, but
that’s not new economic impact coming to town, that’s shifting around internally. When you
opened the Shamrock entered this business deal knowing that you didn’t have a liquor license,
so you can’t lose what you never had. Weldon said it’s the same argument with BraVo’s; they
can’t lose what they never had. So nobody is losing anything.
Bailey said the City is losing because it keeps trying to put a $6.8 million sale on the taxpayers’
backs to attract this economic impact that the Shamrock has the possibility to attract to this
town at zero cost to the taxpayers.
Weldon said there’s been no decision made on the Swiftel Center; that project is a long ways
away yet as far as what is going to happen there and the issue here is what is the City Council
going to do with one remaining operating agreement that’s left on the shelf. It started out as a
competitive process and that’s right where we are right now. He reiterated his earlier
comment to Bailey that “you can’t lose what you never had.” Bailey said it all comes down to
the Council making the decision of what is the best use of this remaining license.
Kip Pharis, BraVo’s, said he’s been up here before and it seems like everyone else has had a
chance to do their presentation. In fact, if his counting is correct, Bailey has been up here four
times and we (BraVo’s) haven’t given a presentation of what BraVo’s is the best place for that
last liquor unrestricted license. He said he was first and only person to work with each and
every one of the City Council members and the Council and the City to do what is best for
Brookings and “to sit up here like a damn baby saying someone else can’t have it and don’t give
it to me and I’m sick and tired of it. It’s just ridiculous. We did our research. I didn’t inherit
a bunch of money and just put up a thing someplace and now the gloves are off, so now I’m
going to tell the truth. The gloves are off and somebody sits up here and tells me why I
shouldn’t have the liquor license. We did our research at BraVo’s. We did our research
working with the Chamber of Commerce for several years going through all the surveys of
what Brookings people wanted. The Brookings people wanted an upscale restaurant. Some of
you know the surveys. Within that, they wanted an Italian restaurant number one and number
two, a steak place. That’s what we did our research for BraVo’s. We didn’t just do this on a
whim; we did a lot of research – right to how the booths were designed, the raised booths, the
lower booths. We did a lot of research to get what Brookings wanted. All of a sudden there’s
competitive process for this liquor license and it comes up to be who is going to bring more
economic development. He sent the Council emails in regards to economic development is
determined based on other things: is it economic wealth, is it all the money it brings in, is it the
resources it brings in, economic benefit for the community members. BraVo’s has been there
for other recruitment of other people and other businesses (eg. hiring the SDSU Foundation,
hiring at other businesses in town) and they’ve been a huge part of that and he hears every
single day. Did I say every single day? We’re open every single day. We’re open 12-16 hours
a day. The other people are not. The other people are not open. They might have one or
two events. Let’s separate the whole issue. Who is bringing more economic dollars in? They
can stand up here and say that they do this much money. The restaurant business does three
to four times more than theirs and he has emailed the Council some economic numbers of
what restaurants really do. If anyone can stand up here and say or their lawyer can say that
57
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
they might not be eligible for a restaurant license; they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Because a franchise business like Applebee’s, TGIF Friday’s, Chili’s, all of those; they do 16%
beer/liquor/wine sales. Is that threatening to anyone that says they want to do food? No, it’s
not. When it got to be 60/40, it’s not a non-issue. This stuff about restaurant business, if
somebody is doing food, it’s not going to be an issue. BraVo’s is the best; every single day that
we’re open people what the liquor sales. He said he’s not going to separate the liquor sales.
Liquor sales are combined with liquor, beer, and alcohol. He’s never done anything to say,
like some other people up here, that ‘I’m not trying to get something that I don’t have’. He
was told that he had to build BraVo’s and then ask for a liquor license and take that process and
that’s what we did.” He said he believes that BraVo’s is the best place and the best use and he’s
the only one that offered to give this license back. He noted having discussions about this with
Council Member Reed and the Mayor. He said he’s sick and tired of someone else telling him
and crying like a baby that they should have something that they don’t deserve and they are not
going to make even one third of the impact that BraVo’s has made to this community. We did
this for Brookings. We did this to make Brookings a better place. He noted the Mayor’s
concern and said he is willing to take license, and if he loses it, he loses it. If he doesn’t agree
to the contract, then he doesn’t agree to it. If he doesn’t agree to the terms of the restaurant
license, then that’s up to him. That’s his risk and he’s saying he’ll assume that risk. He said he
is counting on each of the council members and the committee to make sure we can continue
building a better Brookings and that we’re going to make those restaurant licenses available so
that other franchises can come in and make Brookings better. “Trust me on that, because I
trust you on that.”
Munsterman noted that he has had this discussion with Pharis too, and that the City doesn’t
know what the price is going to be on restaurant licenses. Munsterman said that we don’t
know and that’s where the subcommittee work is hopefully going to bear some of that out so
we can bring it to the Council. He said he didn’t know if we’re talking $18,500 or half a million
dollars or somewhere in between.
Pharis responded that if he wants three of them, then he pays three times the price. He said all
he’s saying is grant BraVo’s a license because they are the best choice for that license
economically, economic wealth reasons, everything. He assumes the risk. If it’s too high, if it’s
$250,000, he’ll have to make that choice at that time, but then he’ll just lose the license. But
it’s up to him. He’s saying that he’ll assume that risk.
Bartley commented to Pharis that he made a valid point as far as the franchises that come to
Brookings with the restaurant licenses, and we need to be cognizant of the cost of that license
as the Council drafts this ordinance because it not only effects BraVo’s, but it effects anyone
wanting to come into this community to open a restaurant with a liquor license. It’s not just
franchises; it’s ‘Mom & Pop’ operations such as yours that we need to be concerned about.
We don’t want to overprice this license, so if we can avoid that so we don’t stifle competition
in that particular area, based on only franchises could afford to come in here. He said we need
to be careful on that.
Pharis said he trusts that the City Council will make the new restaurant licenses affordable and
available to attract those other franchises coming in, because if they’re not, they won’t come.
58
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Munsterman said we may be locked in on what the market price was, we don’t have that
answer yet and that’s the big question. We haven’t had that discussion yet.
Pharis said all he’ll lose is to have an opportunity at that time to say ‘take your license back’ and
he won’t have a license. But we won’t get anyone else to accept that value to come into
Brookings either.
Munsterman said neither one of us know what that number is.
Pharis said, exactly, but you’re talking about a ‘what if’ and he’s saying what if let’s just cross
that bridge when we come to it. He’s the only one that’s accepted the fact and is willing to
give the license back. Please give it to BraVo’s on a temporary basis and then when the new
ones are issued and whatever that number is, then he’ll decide. The City will get it back
anyway and he doesn’t have any control over that. The way he understands it, the City takes it
back and he either has one or accepts that and takes it or he loses it. He is accepting that risk.
Anyone that cares about his position saying it’s too much and that it’s not fair to him to make
that investment; that’s up to him. He’ll take that risk.
Munsterman said BraVo’s will have people coming in and giving them a service and then could
have to say, “we don’t have that anymore.” Pharis said absolutely and he said he could choose
at that time to take BraVo’s someplace else, but that’s his choice. That’s a risk we both have to
take.
Bartley said if we take out applicants personally and look at basically the application process if
we went through entering into this particular temporary operating agreement and we had a
choice between BraVo’s and the Shamrock as the Council made that decision and we chose
BraVo’s at that time. He said he wanted to share with the Council the thought process he
went through when making that decision. He said he’d throw out all the personalities
involved, including his own, but as he looked at it and he walked into any community and he
went to a fine dining establishment, an establishment like BraVo’s. When he walked in there
and sat down to have a meal he would certainly expect that there would be liquor available in
that type of restaurant and that hits him between the eyes that he would expect to find liquor
in that type of a restaurant. On the flip side of that, if he walked into another community and
walked into a banquet hall of any sort with a restaurant attached to it, it probably wouldn’t
cross his mind that he’d expect they would have a liquor license. Beer and wine might be
available, but he wouldn’t be shocked that there wasn’t a liquor license. That helps him make
that decision that if we’re going to promote Brookings to rest of the state as a town with
opportunity for fine dining, as an opportunity for conventions down the road, but right now his
decision was based on the fact that if he walked into a fine dining restaurant, he’d expect to see
liquor. He thinks it makes a very good common sense to issue this license to BraVo’s at this
time and we’ll get everybody hopefully handled under the restaurant bill as we work through
the process and understand that that’s probably going to take us a little bit of time yet.
Bezdichek said he feels as though any time that the City has had an unrestricted license, that
the process has been the same for all of them. When we have an unrestricted license, we get
59
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
applicants that apply for it. There’s always going to be one applicant that’s going to get it and
three, four, five other ones that don’t it. He doesn’t think that process has been any different.
That’s what we have. What makes it difficult is that we have some need here. It is difficulty
for the City Council is that we want all businesses to succeed, so the Council has to try to
work and get done to benefit all those businesses. At this particular time, where he sees that
we have a restriction on it, he is definitely leaning towards the issuance to BraVo’s. We’re
talking maybe four or five months. He thinks the City has the ability to look at, which there are
some other unrestricted licenses out there, whether or not the City can buy those back and
then re-issue those. This isn’t anything probably that the committee will look at because
they’re just going to look at SB126. The other thing too, which within a short period of time,
maybe within one year, Brookings will have an increase in population and we are going to have
more unrestricted licenses in Brookings sometime. This is not going to be the last
unrestricted license because of the census, so the City is going to get some additional
unrestricted licenses. The juggling game that we’re playing right now is to try to get some
revenue for these licenses, especially the unrestricted. With the SB126, it seems as though
there’s still one unrestricted license and there are questions as to what the City can issue out.
He said we’re trying to do the best job. It may not always seem that way. As elected officials,
it makes it hard at time. He thinks in the scheme of things to issue the unrestricted license
would be beneficial at this time. He said we need to see whether or not there is any other
way that we can work with some of the other entities. He’s not fond of the 126 and he still
has some reservations on that. He’d be willing to say that if Brookings is “home rule”; issue an
additional unrestricted license for four or five months. What’s the State going to do? “You
can’t do that –well why?” He said if that’s the premise, why not issue two unrestricted licenses
for five months until we get this thing worked out? What’s the worst that could happen; send
the Mayor to jail? It’s after the fact. He asked could the city issue two? He said if the City
could because of home rule, then let’s do it. He’s for issuing this one out and trying to see if
the City can’t get something worked out in a short period of time for the Shamrock as well.
McClemans said he wasn’t really prepared for this gun battle tonight and was a little surprised
that it popped up, but he understands that’s the way it works. He understands the concerns of
everyone as far as what should be issued and who is the best user of the license. He agreed
somewhat with Bezdichek that issuing the licenses obviously will have many discussions yet on
people and use. He thinks BraVo’s has a definite quality to it and it has a very strong (if Kips
numbers are accurate), that 16% alcohol in many franchise restaurant and thinks this licensing
will eventually work in Brookings once we get over some of the pitfalls. He said he’s not sure
just what and wasn’t prepared to go after this tonight. He’s thinking the decision made a few
weeks ago to table it (when he sat in the audience). The future use of these licenses is really a
gray area and he’d like to see an additional license being able to be issued. We also have a
couple of parties who have been at that last meetings that are not here tonight, which is kind of
a ‘catch 22’ where it was brought back off the table unannounced and he understands that’s
how it works. We have people who are not here. His preference would be to continue with
study, the committee to figure out just what our goals for our licenses. How many do you
issue? What is good common sense with these licenses? He’s a little concerned that we do
the right thing and he’s not sure what that is.
60
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Reed said there’s two points to this discussion. The first being that it’s very clear that the
license is only temporary and he does feel that has been covered tonight and he knows that
there’s exactly what’s said in the lease but also understanding that Kip has stated that when a
restaurant license is available that he’s willing to give back. That was the first thing that was
important. The second thing comes down to the “who.” Who should it go to? It’s a toss up
between the two facilities; they both add to the city. You can sit and argue numbers back and
forth, but you do have to sit back and take in some subjective items when making the decision.
The only thing that really sends it over the top for BraVo’s for him is that a restaurant like that
has been talked about and asked for a long time in Brookings, so he thinks that is where the
first one should go. He does hope that the idea of doing a temporary situation for the
Shamrock could still be looked at and he still thinks that is a good idea temporarily until we
figure out what we’re doing. If it comes to the point that when restaurant licenses are
available and the Shamrock doesn’t fit, then he thinks the City will have to take a look at
reissuing this license to them because he feels they are important.
Brunner said the Reed brought up a lot of good points and that it’s kind of a toss up between
the two and thinks what he’s talking about when you look at the economic impact, we’ve had
both the applicants show where their economic impact is greater than the other. But if you
look at the numbers and look at economic impact, depending on what you include and don’t
include, you can make the numbers look whatever way you want them to for whoever has the
greater economic impact. Subjectively he not only looked at what the economic impact is going
to be, but what are the other factors that go into in making the determination. Because, until
one of them has the license, we won’t know whether it’s events or being open 7 days a week,
where the economic impact is going to be. On the economic impact, it’s a toss up. With
BraVo’s situation, they’re open 7 days a week and they have a lot of advantages in some of
those areas, some of those subjective areas that are hard to calculate. But at the same time,
more important to the community, a lot of people in the community have been asking for a
restaurant / a fine dining establishment. He noted that Kip mentioned that’s why they went
forward putting together BraVo’s was because of that economic impact. Another thing that’s
important to him is the fact that at one time the Council said it was going to give BraVo’s a
temporary operating agreement. That was made on some other premises and those other
premises unfortunately haven’t worked out, but he doesn’t know that two wrongs necessarily
make a right. It’s one of those things where he thinks the City has to look at issuing the
temporary operating agreement to BraVo’s. It is temporary. One really important thing that
Kip touched on was that fact that he is willing to assume that risk and Brunner believes this
Council will hold him to that. Brunner hopes the committee will be able to work out
something that’s affordable and that they’ll work with the community and with the current
license holders and it will be something that will help Brookings grow. But he thinks a
temporary operating agreement is temporary and he believes when it comes down to it, there
may be some other options with home rule and is interested in exploring any of those options
that somebody can come up with. But for him, this is temporary. Kip was willing to assume
the risk. At one time we said we were going to give this license to BraVo’s and he thinks its
important that we keep with what we said we were going to do.
Munsterman asked the City Clerk what the status was of this issue; is there a motion on the
table? Thornes read the following April 15th motion: “Motion was made by Bartley, seconded
61
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
by Thomson, to approve Resolution No. 29-08, a resolution authorizing the city manager to
enter into a liquor operating agreement with BraVo’s on a temporary basis until the new
restaurant licenses are issued.” She noted that on April 29th, the motion to pull it off the table
failed. It is that motion from April 15th.
Bartley commented on McCleman’s earlier comment about this item being on the agenda
tonight. It’s appropriate that anything that is tabled can come up at any meeting. He
referenced that the May 13th agenda packet cited this issue for the meeting on May 27th.
McClemans asked when this license would be issued. How long does it take and go into effect?
Weldon said if it were to be approved by the City Council, it has to go to the State
Department of Revenue and Regulation just like all our other operating agreements. They do a
certain amount of checking on the applicant as well. They indicate to the City that it has been
cleared and then it goes into effect. Until the city gets the sign-off from the state, the operating
agreement does not go into effect until that happens.
McClemans asked how long – 10 days or two weeks? Thornes said 10 days to two weeks is an
appropriate amount of time.
Britzman said the operating agreement is drafted and would be ready to go. Thornes clarified
that the State does not get the agreement, they receive the state alcohol application. The
operating agreement and payment by Mr. Pharis would be a separate action that the state is not
involved with. Britzman just wanted to note that we wouldn’t have to wait to get that
document drafted because it is prepared.
Thornes was asked to read back the April 15th motion.
McClemans asked regarding licenses and license fees, if anything was addressed in the
agreement on pro-rating or if the license is taken back. Does he pay for the license for the
whole year? There is a fee of $1500; how does that work if you buy it in January or July, is it
the same fee? Thornes said they made provisions to pro-rate it at $125 per month. Britzman
said that issue has been addressed in the operating agreement and that we’re a month or more
beyond where we drafted that, but it would be appropriate to have that pro-rated in the
operating agreement to the extent that we can. We certainly would not have a full year fee; it
should be pro-rated for the duration of the license to the extent that the city can.
Bartley asked Britzman if all licenses weren’t pro-rated when they’re issued? The first initial
operating agreement when it’s issued is always pro-rated? Britzman said that is probably true,
but if we had an early termination within a calendar year he’s not sure on the back end of a
pro-ration whether or not there’s any recovery if it’s terminated before the end of a calendar
year. He knows it would be pro-rated at the beginning for the months that have already
passed, but it’s terminated early he’s not sure if there’d be an additional recovery.
Thornes noted that there was only one other issue when a pro-ration was involved and that
was when Cubby’s received it for a partial year, otherwise they do pay the full amount.
62
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Bartley cited the lease agreement, …”If the Managers payments of the Annual License Fee
exceed the correct pro-rated portion of the amount of Annual License Fee actually payable for
the duration of this Agreement (and the duration is presently uncertain) then the City shall
reimburse the amount of Annual License Fee which exceeds the correct pro-rated amount for
the period this Agreement is actually in effect.” Bartley said he thinks we’re covered.
Britzman said the intent was to do so. It was a little bit subject to the state’s viewpoint of a
termination prior to the end of the calendar year as whether there could be any recovery at
the tail end of the agreement. He thinks it was contemplated when that language was drafted,
but the uncertainty was not having experience with a termination of a license within a calendar
year. Bartley clarified if the fee was $1500. Yes. Bartley said he didn’t think that was an
amount in this particular case was going to make a difference with the applicant.
A motion was made by McClemans to put it back on the table. Motion failed for lack of
second.
Munsterman said he was going to go ahead and support this tonight and he’s nervous about it.
But listening to Pharis tonight saying he’s willing to risk it, Munsterman said he’ll go along with
that. But he reiterated that he’s nervous about it and doesn’t know if it’s the wise thing to do
or not because we do have to get the financial issue figured out and he hopes it can be in a
range that is going to work for everybody. We may be limited on what we can do in that area
just based on what the market is. He doesn’t know, he doesn’t know what the number is
going to be but he’s willing to go out on a limb in terms of his vote tonight.
Reed echoed the nervousness, but he thinks as a Council we’ll try to do the best we can.
There may be some outside influences with the way the bill has been done, that we have some
problems with it. So let’s hope that doesn’t happen, but he knows we’ll try our best to make it
reasonable so other restaurants have the ability to come into Brookings and compete.
On the tabled motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 29-08
BraVo’s, Inc. Operating Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves an Operating Liquor Management Agreement between the City of Brookings and
BraVo’s Inc. for the purpose of a liquor manager to operate the on-sale establishment or
business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at 610 Medary Avenue, also known as
BraVo’s.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City, which shall be for a temporary period until the City is legally
able to issue On-Sale Licenses for Full-Service Restaurants (Full-Service Restaurant Licenses).
Executive Session. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Reed, to enter into
executive session at 7:45 p.m. for consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications
from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters with Council,
Manager, Attorney and Clerk present. All present voted yes; motion carried. A motion was
63
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to exit executive session at 8:13 p.m. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
Council Topics. McClemans requested council discussion at a future work session on the
following topics: Liquor Store Report and Evaluation and Economic Development Land
Transfer Value.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by McClemans, to adjourn. All present
voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
64
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
The following policy addresses the management and programming content of the City’s
Government Access Channel. The Council has reviewed and commented on this
document on two other occasions.
Background: Cable providers are required to provide a public access channel to the
City of Brookings under their Cable Franchise Agreement. On March 10, 2008,
Mediacom’s 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.
65
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Policy for Production and Programming
of Government Cable Channel 9
City of Brooking, SD
Dated June 10, 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.
66
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 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,
for executive sessions, to comply with legal standards of decency, or when
technical difficulties restrict production procedures.
67
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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:
1. A company or organization may be recognized at the beginning and/or end of a
program for underwriting that specific program.
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
68
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 three
months 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.
5.3.2 Requests for retention longer than three months should be made in advance
of the three month 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 to be determined by the City Clerk that
reflects the actual cost of time and materials.
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.
69
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action to approve the City Council’s 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 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.
70
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
71
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
72
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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, III, and IV infrastructure for Growth Partnership
2) Prepare debt financing package for Phase II - IV backed by repayment from TID #1
development
3) Phase II is bid and constructed
4) Phase III is bid and constructed
5) Phase IV is bid and constructed
Timeline:
1: By January 2009
2: December 2008
3: Summer 2009
4: Summer 2010
5: Summer 2011
Project cost/means of financing:
City will issue tax increment bonds to finance Phase II - IV 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 I financing is secured
by the Growth Partnership Board.
-Phase II: $790,000
-Phase III: $2,078,360
-Phase IV: $963,000
Responsible party:
Engineering Department, BMU, and Growth Partnership
Outcomes:
Complete all infrastructure to 126 acre research park to attract technology related
businesses.
73
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
74
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
75
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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
Timeline:
1: June 2008
2: July – August 2008
3-5: September 2008
Prioritized projects scheduled for construction during 2009
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.
76
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
77
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
78
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
79
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
80
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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.
81
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action to hold a special Council meeting on June 17, 2008.
Per state law, City Council action is required to hold a city council meeting.
A special meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 17th, from 4 to 6 p.m.
regarding review of the Storm Water Drainage Plan.
82
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with First
Planning District to provide grant administrative services.
First District Association of Local Governments is providing grant
administrative services for the HUD EDI Grant for the Brookings
Streetscape project. The grant award agreement stipulates said services
would be $4,000. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the
agreement.
AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City of Brookings, hereinafter referred
to as “Grantee,” and the First District Association of Local Governments, hereinafter referred
to as “District.”
WHEREAS, the Grantee has entered into an agreement with the Department of Housing &
Urban Development (HUD) to receive a $357,660 Economic Development Initiative grant
(Grant #: B-03-SD-SD-0726), and
WHEREAS, the Grantee desires assistance in meeting the administrative requirements of the
EDI-SD program,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED that the District will provide the administrative assistance
and services as follows upon the request of the Grantee:
The District will assist the Grantee in the preparation of the documents and reports as follows:
• Assist the Grantee in setting up and maintaining administrative files.
• Assist the Grantee in setting up financial ledger and transaction file.
• Assist in the completion of the project’s Environmental Review Record and all
subsequent environmental documents.
• Assist in the completion of all periodic financial and project status reports required by
the federal government.
• Attend pre-bid, bid opening, and pre-construction meetings as requested.
• As requested by the Grantee, the District will attend all monitoring and site visits
conducted by the federal government.
FURTHERMORE, the District will provide the following liaison functions:
• Facilitate communications between the Grantee and HUD; and
83
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
• Provide information to the Grantee and other parties associated with the project about
each entity’s responsibilities.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that the above services shall begin upon notification of grant award
from HUD to the Grantee.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that compensation to the District for the above services shall be in
the amount of $4,000 and shall be paid upon the completion, submittal, and approval of the
environmental review.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that the compensation schedule shall include those activities
completed by the District on behalf of the Grantee.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that no additional administrative charges will be assessed the Grantee
by the District. All District travel, salary and office expenses are included in the lump sum
compensation figure.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that the District will continue to provide all agreed upon
administrative services to the Grantee beyond the final compensation payment date.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that the Grantee will maintain the ultimate responsibility for
administering the project; the District can only assist in the administration of the grant.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that this Agreement may, from time to time, be amended when
mutually agreed to, in writing, by the parties of the Agreement.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that this Agreement shall terminate upon completion of the grant
received by the Grantee as referenced below.
IT FURTHER IS AGREED that this Agreement may be extended or terminated prior to the
expiration date when mutually agreed to, in writing, by the parties to the Agreement.
This agreement is entered into on the _______ day of __________________, 2008.
FOR: CITY OF BROOKINGS FOR: FIRST DISTRICT
ASSOCIATION
OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
By __________________________________ By
________________________________
Dick Edenstrom, Executive Director
ATTEST: ____________________________
84
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. INVITATION FOR A CITIZEN TO SCHEDULE TIME
ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR AN ISSUE NOT
LISTED.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
6. SDSU STUDENT SENATE REPORT.
85
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
7. Mayoral Proclamations:
There are currently no proclamation requests for the month of
June.
** Enclosed for information purposes – no presentations are scheduled at the meeting.
86
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
8. Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message.
Mayor Munsterman will present his annual State of the City Message at the meeting. A
copy of the report will be available after the meeting on the city of Brookings website
(www.cityofbrookings.org).
87
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
9. Ordinance No. 28-08: Budget Amendment - An
Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A
Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For
The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The
Operation Of The City.
Second Reading: June 24th
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date
for the public hearing is announced.
The budget amendment to fund the Traffic Model Study per the joint agreement
recognizes the expense and the revenue from Brookings County and East Brookings
Business and Industry Association.
The increase of $25,885 within the Fire department’s expense line for capital purchases
is because a grant was receipted in November of 2007 for equipment delivered in
January of 2008.
The additional $645,217 budget amendment for the Downtown Streetscape Project per
resolution 30-08 is funded by the following transfers:
9 Transfer from Liquor Reserve $107,722
9 Transfer from Landfill Collections $100,000
9 Transfer from 2nd Penny Reserves $100,000
9 Transfer from General Fund CIP Reserves $300,000
9 Transfer from BMU $ 37,495
The budget amendment for $189,215 for the purchase of land for future Airport needs
and development is being funded by a transfer from the 75% Sales and Use Tax Fund.
The miscellaneous amendments to line items within individual departments create
neither an increase nor decrease over all.
88
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Ordinance No. 28-08
An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The
2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of
The City.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA:
WHEREAS, the City Council passed a motion on February 26, 2008 agreeing to pay 50% of
the cost for a joint traffic model study,
AND WHEREAS, the City Council passed resolution 11-08, declaring the necessity for
a street assessment project, called 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project,
AND WHEREAS, the Fire Department received a donation in 2007 for the purchase of
equipment,
AND WHEREAS, there has been residential development requiring additional fire hydrants
be installed,
AND WHEREAS, the Council passed resolution 44-08, authorizing the execution of real
estate purchase for the purpose of preparing for potential airport needs and further
development,
AND WHEREAS STATE LAW (SDCL 9-21-7) AND THE CITY CHARTER (4.06
(a) permit supplemental appropriations provided there are sufficient funds and revenues
available to pay the appropriation when it becomes due,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the City
Manager be authorized to make the following budget adjustments to the 2008 budget:
Budget Amendment #2 Revenue Expense
Non-Departmental $75,267 $375,267
Administrative $ 2,000
Public Works ($ 1,981)
Public Safety $ 25,342
Culture & Recreation $ 2,052 $ 2,576
Total General Fund $77,319 $403,204
25% Sales & Use Tax $ 19,767
75% Sales & Use Tax $189,215
Streetscape Project $645,217 $645,217
Airport $189,215 $189,215
Liquor Fund $107,722
Solid Waste Collection $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Solid Waste Disposal $125,000 $125,000
89
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
This Ordinance is declared to be for the support of the municipal government and its existing
public institutions and it shall be in full force and effect after its passage and publication.
ALL ORDINANCES or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: June 10, 2008
SECOND READING: June 24, 2008
PUBLISHED: June 27, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
90
2008 2008 2008 2008
Adopted Amendment Amendment Amended
Non-Departmental Revenue Expense Budget
101-000-4-441-08 Reimbursed Expense 0 55,500 55,500
101-405-5-422-03 Consulting/Traffic Flow Study 20,446 106,000 126,446
101-495-5-856-05 Other Transportation 85,733 (30,733)55,000
101-000-6-700-04 Transfer in from Sales & Use Tax/Traffic Study 941,000 19,767 960,767
101-495-7-899-02 Transfer out to Streetscape/ GF CIP Reserve 0 300,000 300,000
Total Non-Departmental 75,267 375,267
City Clerk
101-403-5-425-01 Maintenance/Software Maintenance 750 2,000 2,750
Total City Clerk 0 2,000
Engineering
101-419-5-130.00 Workmans Compensation 6,655 (2,605)4,050
101-419-5-421.00 Insurance 5,840 769 6,609
Total Engineering 0 (1,836)
Police Department
101-421-5-130.00 Workmans Compensation 43,107 (8,000)35,107
101-421-5-421-00 Insurance 22,411 (2,800)19,611
101-421-5-425-02 Maintenance of vehicles 11,500 1,498 12,998
101-421-5-426-12 Tires 1,800 1,649 3,449
Total Fire Department 0 (7,653)
Fire Department
101-422-5-424-04 Hydrant Rental 75,000 7,110 82,110
101-422-5-920-00 Equipment/Paratech trailer & generator 0 25,885 25,885
Total Fire Department 0 32,995
Street Department
101-431-5-130.00 Workmans Compensation 29,396 (7,083)22,313
101-431-5-421-00 Insurance 35,819 (4,562)31,257
101-431-5-428-03 Heat 14,800 5,000 19,800
101-431-5-426-13 Diesel Fuel 26,000 6,500 32,500
Total Street 0 (145)
Recreation
101-451-5-130-00 Workmans Compensation 18,632 (2,827)15,805
101-451-5-421-00 Insurance 12,490 (2,095)10,395
101-451-5-428-03 Heat 5,000 1,000 6,000
Total Recreation 0 (3,922)(3,922)
Parks
101-452-5-130-00 Workmans Compensation 19,945 (885)19,060
101-452-5-421-00 Insurance 29,365 (2,786)26,579
101-452-5-426-06 Horticulture Supplies/Golf Course Fertilizer 18,000 10,000 28,000
Total Parks 0 6,329 6,329
Forestry
101-454-5-130-00 Workmans Compensation 7,463 (1,133)6,330
101-454-5-428-03 Heat 3,000 500 3,500
Total Parks 0 (633)(633)
Library
101-455-4-334-09 Grant 0 2,052 2,052
101-455-5421-00 Insurance 8,201 (1,250)6,951
101-455-5-950-01 Computers per grant 7,000 2,052 9,052
Total Library 2,052 802
77,319 403,204
(300,000)
(25,885)
77,319 77,319 0
25% Public Improvement/Sales Tax
212-000-7-899-00 Transfer out to GF/Traffic Flow Study 941,000 19,767 960,767
Total 25% Pulbic Improvement 0 19,767
75% Public Improvement/Sales Tax
213-000-5-899-01 Transfer out to Airport 0 189,215 189,215
Total 75% Pulbic Improvement 189,215
Streetscape
513-000-6-700-00 Transfer in from General Fund Bal/ CIP Reserve 0 300,000 300,000
513-000-6-700-04 Transfer in from 75% 2nd Penny 1,389,560 100,000 1,489,560
513-000-6-700-02 Transfer in from Landfill 0 100,000 100,000
513-000-6-700-01 Transfer in from Liquor 0 107,722 107,722
513-000-6-700-08 Transfer in from Utilities 350,000 37,495 387,495
513-000-5-856-99 Streetscape Contingency 339,560 339,560
513-000-5-940-00 Streets and Sidewalk 2,657,000 607,722 3,264,722
513-000-5-940-02 Sewer and Water 350,000 37,495 387,495
Total Streetscape 645,217 645,217
Liquor
601-000-7-899-23 Transfer to Streetscape 0 107,722 107,722
Total Liquor 0 107,722
Airport
606-000-6-700.04 Transfer in Sales & Use Tax 0 189,215 189,215
606-000-5-910-00 Land 0 189,215 189,215
Total Solid Waste Collection 189,215 189,215
Solid Waste Collection
612-000-4-848-01 Utility Billing 790,000 8,000 798,000
612-000-5-426-13 Diesel Fuel 32,000 8,000 40,000
Total Solid Waste Collection 8,000 8,000
Solid Waste Disposal
625-000-4-848-03 Landfill Tickets 1,700,000 100,000 1,800,000
625-000-4-848-22 Recycled Waste Oil Sales 50 25,000 25,050
625-000-5-426-13 Diesel Fuel 55,000 25,000 80,000
625-000-7-899-23 Transfer to Streetscape 100,000 100,000
Total Solid Waste Disposal 125,000 125,000
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on the annual Malt Beverage
Renewals.
A public hearing and action by the governing body is required to renew Malt Beverage
Licenses on an annual basis. The enclosed legal notice was published listing all the
applications. Licenses are effective from July 1st to June 30th. The license fees are $150
for Off-Sale and $250 for On-Off Sale. Once approved, the applications will be
forwarded to the State Department of Revenue for final action and issuance of the
license.
City Ordinances:
The following is the City Code of Ordinances pertaining to Application Review
Procedure.
The City Council shall review all applications submitted to the City for available On-Sale
Alcoholic Beverage Agreements and for On-Sale Malt Beverage and Wine Licenses in
accordance with SDCL 35-2 and in accordance with the following factors:
(a) Type of business which applicant proposes to operate:
On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Operating Agreements and On-Sale Malt
Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued to convenience grocery
stores, gas stations, or other stores where groceries or gasoline are sold
unless it can be established that minors do not regularly frequent the
establishment.
(b) The manner in which the business is operated:
On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Operating Agreements and On-Sale Malt
Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued to establishments which
are operated in a manner which results in minors regularly frequenting
the establishment.
(c) The extend to which minors are employed in such a place of business:
On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Operating Agreements and On-Sale Malt
Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued to convenience grocery
stores, gas stations, or other stores where groceries or gasoline are sold
and which regularly employ minors.
(d) The adequacy of the police facilities to properly police the proposed location:
The City Council shall inquire of the Police Chief whether the Police
Department can adequately police the proposed location.
(e) Other factors:
The hours that business is conducted shall be considered by the City
Council in its review of applications for on-sale alcoholic beverage
operating agreements and on-sale malt beverage and wine licenses
State Law Information:
SDCL 35-2-1.2 provides all applications for retail licenses …shall be submitted to the
governing board of the municipality within which the applicant intends to operate…The
93
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
governing board: “shall have discretion to approve or disapprove the application
depending on whether it deems the applicant a suitable person to hold such license and
whether it considers the proposed location suitable.”
SDCL 35-2-6.2 provides the “character” requirements for alcoholic beverage licensees:
“Any license under this title…must be a person of good moral character, never
convicted of a felony, and, if a corporation, the managing officers thereof must have like
qualifications.”
Procedure for issuance of licenses:
Procedurally, SDCL 35-2-3 provides that “no license for the on or off-sale at retail of
alcoholic beverages…shall be granted to an applicant for any such license, except after
public hearing, upon notice.” SDCL 35-2-5 provides the procedure for the time and
place of hearing and for publication of notice. If an application for a license is refused,
“no further application may be received from a person until after the expiration of one
year from the date of a refused application.”
Summary:
SDCL and case law support the premise that the decision to issue an alcoholic beverage
license is discretionary. The City can assess the character of the applicant and whether
the location is suitable. A person convicted of a felony is prohibited from applying for a
license; therefore, a convicted felon would fail the character test. In determining suitable
location, the Council may involve the determination of whether the location is suitable
consistent with the procedure developed through South Dakota Case Law. This
includes the manner in which the business is operated; the extent to which minors
frequent or are employed in such place of business; the adequacy of the police facilities
to properly police the proposed location, and other factors associated with the sale of
alcoholic beverages.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, roll call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
94
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
The following is a list of On-Off Sale Malt and Off-Sale Malt renewals for alcoholic beverage
licenses to operate within the City of Brookings, South Dakota, for the 2008-2009 licensing
period:
On-Off Sale Malt (retail):
Gonz Production, Inc. (Main Street Pub), 408 Main Ave.
Old Sanctuary, 928 4th St.
Guadalajara, Village Square Mall #1
Skinner’s Pub 302 Main Ave.
King’s Wok, 1819 6th St.
George’s Pizza & Steakhouse, 311 Main Ave.
Danny’s, 703 Main Ave. So.
BraVo’s, 610 Medary Ave.
Pizza Hut, 418 6th St.
Oly’s Neighborhood Pub & Grill, 725 Main Av. So.
Ray’s Corner, 401 Main Ave.
Carpy’s Pub, 700 22nd Ave. So.
Edgebrook Golf Course, 1415 22nd Ave. So.
Sixth Street Diner, 223 6th St.
South Main Diner, 615 Main Ave. So.
Casino 2000, 622 25th Ave.
The Shamrock, 1104 22nd Ave. So.
Swiftel Center, 824 32nd Ave.
PNP Pub, 318 2nd St. So.
Greengo’s, 1300 S. Main Ave.
Schoon’s PNP Pub South, 1203 Main Ave. So.
Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill, 307 Main Ave.
Off-Sale Malt (package)
Jim’s Tap, 309 Main Ave.
Safari Lounge, 421 Main Ave.
Schoon’s Pump-n-Pak, 202 S. Main Ave.
Gas N More, 600 6th St.
Kum & Go, 1005 6th St.
Kum & Go, 3045 LeFevre Dr.
BP of Brookings Inc., 2420 E. 6th St.
Casey’s General Store, 534 22nd Ave. So.
Casey’s General Store, 620 8th St. So.
Casey’s General Store, 122 West 6th St.
Newman’s Kerr McGee, 503 6th St.
Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22nd Ave.
Hy-Vee Gas, 716 22nd Ave. So.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2233 6th St.
95
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Other Business.
11. Action on Resolution No. 46-08, awarding bids for 2008-
08STI, Street Maintenance Project.
This project is the annual street maintenance project that entails street repairs and
asphalt overlays on various streets in Brookings. This project was broken down into
several work schedules that were tied together into one contract, which are:
• Schedule A: Asphalt F.O.B. Plant (freight on board) – this is used for patching
material that the Street Department picks up at the plant
• Schedule B: Overlays – for asphalt milling and overlays on designated streets
• Schedule C: Larsen Ice Arena Parking Lot – for asphalt digout repairs and
asphalt paving on the east side of the Ice Arena Building and possibly some
repairs on the west side of the Ice Arena if budget allows. This schedule does
not include asphalt paving for the east/west “through” road between the Ice
Arena and Swiftel Center and 34th Avenue. The Swiftel budget did not have
funds available to pave the through road.
• Schedule D: Drain Tile Project – This project includes installing drain tile on
Martin Boulevard from Western Avenue to the west end of Esther Heights. This
project will assist in dewatering the area, with the anticipation that the road bed
will stabilize and allow the City to perform a mill and overlay project in 2009.
The advertisement was mailed to area contractors and 2 builders exchanges. The bid
letting was held on June 3, 2008:
Schedule A Asphalt F.O.B. Bowes Construction, Inc. $42,536.00
Schedule B Overlays Bowes Construction, Inc. $41,942.49
Schedule C Ice Arena Parking Lot Bowes Construction, Inc. $57,053.60
Schedule D Drain Tile Project Bowes Construction, Inc. $18,836.00
Total Project: $160,368.69
The low bid for Schedule A (F.O.B.) was 20% lower than the engineer’s estimate of
$53,400.00. The low bid for Schedule B (Overlays) was 33% lower than the engineer’s
estimate of $62,250.00. The low bid for Schedule C (Larsen Ice Arena Parking Lot) was
13% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $65,825.00. The low bid for Schedule D
(Drain Tile Project) was 27% lower than the engineer’s estimate of $25,800.00. The
total of all schedules of $160,368.69 was approximately 22% lower than the engineer’s
estimate of $207,275.00. The bids were well within the City’s budget for this work, and
the City may propose to perform more work the plans quantities to allow us to expend
the budgeted amounts. Any proposed increase in quantities would need to be approved
by the City Council as a change order. Recommend awarding the contract to the low
bidder.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
96
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Resolution No. 46-08
Resolution Awarding Bids on 2008-08STI
Street Maintenance Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Project 2008-08STI Street Maintenance
Project on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for 2008-08STI Street
Maintenance Project:
Schedule A Asphalt F.O.B. Bowes Construction, Inc. $ 42,536.00
Schedule B Overlays Bowes Construction, Inc. $ 41,942.49
Schedule C Ice Arena Parking Lot Bowes Construction, Inc. $ 57,053.60
Schedule D Drain Tile Project Bowes Construction, Inc. $ 18,836.00
Total Project: $160,368.69
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Bowes Construction, Inc. for the
total of Schedules A, B, C, and D for $160,368.69 be accepted.
Passed and approved this 10th day of June 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
97
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Other Business.
12. Action to appoint the Deputy Mayor.
Council action to annually appoint a Deputy Mayor is required in the City Charter.
Duties are to conduct the meeting in the absence of Mayor Munsterman and conduct
ceremonial duties when he is not available. This would be a one year term through June
1, 2009. A nomination from the floor would be appropriate. Council Member Tim
Reed was appointed as Deputy Mayor on May 24, 2006 for a one year term and again
June 12, 2007 through present.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
98
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Other Business.
13. Action on a revised preliminary plat of portions of
BlairHill and BlairHill Second Addition.
Applicant: BlairHill Properties, Inc.
Proposal: Establish residential lots for single-family houses in a Residence R-3 District
Background: The land south of 15th Street South and east of Camelot Drive was part of
preliminary plats approved in 2001 and 2004, respectively. The 2004 plan has minor lot
area modifications, but the 2001 plan has been changed significantly. The area west of
Christine Avenue has not been part of a previous residential plan.
Specifics: The various elements of the revised subdivision plan are addressed below:
Street design – Christine, excluding the portion south of 15th, Camelot and 15th Street
South are already platted. Christine and 15th are minor collector streets and will have
70-foot right-of-way widths. Camelot is a local street.
Pactola Cove and Sylvan Avenue are two proposed local streets. The eyebrow on
Pactola Cove is designed with a 50-foot radius. The standard radius is 60 feet. The
proposed roadway widths on the plat are regulated by engineering design standards.
Christine Avenue and Sylvan Avenue are approximately 700 feet apart. A typical block
length is approximately 350 to 400 feet long. The 2001 preliminary plat had an additional
street in-between these two streets.
Land design – The lots along Pactola Cove are in a standard two-tier design with a
single-row perimeter. The area directly south and west of Christine has limited design
options due to drainage issues further south.
The revised preliminary plan shows 13 lots fronting on 15th Street South between
Christine and Sylvan Avenues. The proposed plan, if approved as presented, would
allow for 11 driveways to access a minor collector street in slightly less than a two-
block area. It is typical not to restrict access on minor collector streets and on-street
parking could be restricted or eliminated in this area. But, it would be advantageous to
see what is planned further to the south.
The 2001 plan, in contrast, showed a development plan down to the 1/16 line. That plan
also had an additional street and larger lots. This would have made it possible to limit
driveways off 15th Street South for several corner lots and thereby create a safer street
near the future elementary school.
Open Space – No open space is shown. Camelot Park, north of the new elementary
school, is a 7.3-acre neighborhood park that can serve this area.
99
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Drainage Plan – Surface drainage flows primarily east to west. City-owned land to the
west has a drainageway and retention ponds further south that will be utilized in the
overall drainage plan for this area. Land near Camelot Drive will likely drain south into
an existing pond on Lot 12A.
Grading Plan – Minimal grading is anticipated.
City Engineer’s comment: The preliminary drainage plan is being incorporated with
the drainage plan being completed for the 15th Street South/Camelot Drive/Christine
Avenue Street Assessment Project. The drainage flows from the BlairHill lots shown on
this plat would be managed in the City’s large detention/retention pond just west of this
development. The particular issues such as cost for the detention improvement will
need to be negotiated between the City and the developer before the proposed lots are
final platted.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the revised preliminary plat
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
100
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 #5 – BlairHill Properties, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat of a portion of BlairHill
Addition and BlairHill Second Addition in the SW¼ of Section 36-T110N-R50W
(Fjeldos/Kurtz) Motion to approve the preliminary plat. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #5 – Keith Rounds, representing BlairHill Properties Inc., stated that stormwater
drainage from the lots would all go to the west. Scott Hodges, also representing BlairHill
Properties Inc., presented a rough sketch of a future plan to the south of the proposed
preliminary plan.
Heuton asked about on-street parking along 15th Street South. Lanning responded that
the Traffic Safety Committee would discuss the issue. She remarked that the Safe Routes to
School Program recommended safe travel routes between schools. Fifteenth Street South could
be chosen for the route which could result in no on-street parking and a bike lane added.
Gustafson asked how Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive would be regulated. Hanson
replied that access restrictions would be considered whenever possible during the final plat
stage. Fargen inquired about internal traffic circulation for the school. Lanning noted that a
parking lot was designed northeast of the school. A parking lot was also planned in the
southeast corner of the school property. Kurtz asked about the drainage plan. Lanning
remarked that the drainage plan would be part of the street assessment project.
Fjeldos asked for a reason for a 50 foot radius on the Pactola Cove eyebrow. Brad
Wermers, Banner Associates, replied that the shallow depth on the lots made a standard 60
foot radius difficult. Lanning noted that boulevard widths and utility locations change when a
standard radius is not used.
101
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Other Business.
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of
Brookings:
A. Action on Resolution No. 45-08, a Resolution Declaring
Boundaries, and Recommending Creation Of Tax
Incremental District Number Three (3), City Of Brookings.
Development: Valley View Addition
Proposal: Create a tax increment district for the purpose of using property taxes to
fund specific public improvements within the district.
Background: The use of tax increment financing (TIF) to fund public improvements has
become very popular in the state. Major communities throughout the state such as
Rapid City, Mitchell, and Sioux Falls and many other smaller towns have used TIF to pay
for extending roads, sewer and other infrastructure into areas to expedite development.
As the name implies, only the tax increment (future growth in property tax revenues) is
used to fund the improvement. The base, or property tax generated before the TID is
created, continues to be paid to the taxing authorities.
TIDs are created to help local governments attract private development. In turn, these
developments bring more jobs and business into the community, and everyone benefits
in the long term.
Specifics: SDCL Chapter 11-9 requires that the Planning Commission hold a public
hearing on a TID and its proposed boundaries. TID #3 is shown on the map with the
corresponding legal descriptions. The district, if developed as proposed on a preliminary
development plan, will require substantial infrastructure improvements. The timely
installation of these improvements would be enhanced significantly by the advantages
offered through the creation of a Tax Increment District. The two “legs” that extend
east from the Valley View Addition are needed to bring water/sewer services into the
subdivision.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval for creating and establishing the boundaries for TID # 3.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
104
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Resolution No. 45-08
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION AND DESIGNATION OF
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NUMBER THREE, CITY OF BROOKINGS,
DEFINING ITS BOUNDARIES AND APPROVING ITS PROJECT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the creation of Tax
Incremental District Number Three and has submitted a proposed project plan for Tax
Increment District Number Three.
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has the power, pursuant to SDCL § 11-9-2(1), to
create the Tax Increment District Number Three, City of Brookings and define its boundaries.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
1. Authorization. The City hereby finds that twenty-five percent (25%) and more of the real
property located within the boundaries of the proposed Tax Increment District Three, City
of Brookings, is a blighted area under SDCL § 11-9-10(2), (4), (8) and 11-9-11. Further, the
City finds that the improvement of the area is likely to enhance significantly the value of
substantially all of the other real property in the District. The City also uses the powers
granted pursuant to SDCL § 9-54 for the economic development of the Tax Incremental
District Number Three, City of Brookings.
2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Not less than 25% of the property in the District is a blighted area;
b. Improvements to the District are likely to add millions of dollars assessed valuation to
the district and will significantly and substantially enhance the value of all property in the
district;
c. There is a reasonable likelihood that there will be an affordable housing built in the
District by Blair Hill Properties or their assigns.
d. The aggregate assessed value of the District plus the tax increment base of all other
existing districts in the City does not exceed ten percent of the total assessed valuation
in the City.
e. The District is open bare land void of site improvements which impairs the sound
growth of the City.
f. The District lacks water connections which substantially impairs the sound growth of
the District.
g. The District lacks sewerage connections or treatment which substantially arrests the
sound growth of the District.
h. The District lacks streets, roads and fire protection which retards housing
accommodations and constitutes a economic liability and is a menace to the public
welfare in its present condition.
i. As demonstrated by many group meetings discussing affordable housing and sufficient
housing stock, there is substantial need for affordable housing and that the property in
its open condition and with its obsolete plating impairs and arrests the sound growth of
the city.
j. The District constitutes a blighted area as defined in SDCL Chapter 11-9.
105
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
3. Creation of District. There is hereby created, pursuant to SDCL Chapter 11-9 the Tax
Increment District Number Three, City of Brookings.
4. Date of Creation. The Tax Increment District is hereby created on _____________,
2008.
5. Boundaries of District. Tax Increment District Number Three shall have boundaries which
shall included the following described real property:
The north one-half (1/2) of the NE 1/4 of Section 3 Township 109 north range 50 west,
excluding the west 755 feet, all of Esther Heights Addition, and the south 78 feet of the
east 1.159 feet thereof and including the south half of the abutting 20th Street right-of-
way, the south half of the 20th Street South right-of-way extending west from the
Western Avenue South intersection a distance of 1.159 feet and the west 238 feet of
the Martin Boulevard right-of-way.
6. Approval of Project Plan. A hearing by the Planning Commission concerning the creation
and boundaries of the Tax Increment District Number Three, City of Brookings was held
on May 6, 2008. Pursuant to SDCL 11-9-17, the City hereby approves the project plan as
submitted by the Planning commission. The City finds that the plan is feasible and in
conformity with the master plan (if no master plan, then plans) of the municipality.
7. Approval of Development Agreement. The City Council does hereby approve the
development agreement which shall set forth certain conditions set by the City.
8. Authorization to Transfer of Dedicated Public Improvements. The City Council the mayor
and finance officer to transfer the dedicated public works and improvements set forth in the
TIF Plan and Developers Agreement in accordance with the TIF Plan and Developer’s
Agreement, copies of which are on file with the finance officer and open to public
inspection.
9. Officer Direction. The City hereby directs the Mayor and Finance Officer to take such
action as they deem necessary to accomplish the intent of this resolution, the TIF Plan and
the Developer’s Agreement.
10. Creation of Tax Incremental Fund. There is hereby created, pursuant to SDCL 11-9-31, a
Tax Increment District Number Three Fund, City of Brookings.
11. Deposit of Tax Increments. All tax increments collected pursuant to Tax Increment
District Number Three shall be deposited into the Tax Increment District Number Three
Fund. All funds in the Tax Increment District Number Three Fund shall be used solely for
those proposed expenses in SDCL 11-9.
Passed and approved this 10th day of June, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
106
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
member _________________, and upon vote being taken thereof, the following voted YEA:
those voting NAY:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA )
:SS
CITY OF BROOKINGS )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of
Brookings, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing is a full, true and complete
transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City, held on
____________________, insofar as the original minutes relating to proceeding for the
creation of a tax increment district.
WITNESS my hand and official seal of said City this ______ day of ____________,
2008.
___________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City of Brookings
Brookings City, South Dakota
107
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
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 #6 – Tax Increment District Number Three
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 11-9-3 of the South Dakota Codified Laws, that a
public hearing shall be conducted at 311 3rd Avenue in the Brookings City Council Chamber in
the City of Brookings, on May 6, 2008, at 7:00 PM or as soon thereafter as can be heard by the
City Planning Commission of the City of Brookings, on the question of whether to recommend
the formation of a Tax Incremental District to be located in the City of Brookings in the
following location:
Description:
The north one-half (1/2) of the NE ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W excluding the west 755 feet,
all of Esther Heights Addition, and the south 78 feet of the east 1,159 feet thereof and including
the south half of the abutting 20th Street right-of-way, the south half of the 20th Street South
right-of-way extending west from the Western Avenue South intersection a distance of 1,159
feet and the west 238 feet of the Martin Boulevard right-of-way.
(Heuton/Kurtz) Motion to approve the boundaries for the Tax Incremental District Number
Three as described. All present voted aye. MOTION CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #6 – Keith Rounds, developer of the Valley View Addition, stated that BlairHill
Properties, Inc. would pass any development cost savings into more affordable housing. He
explained that a 12 inch water line would need to be extended from Western Avenue. A six
inch water line nearby would not be sufficient for fire protection.
The method of financing would be a pay-as-you-go by the developer. There would be no
bonding, and the risk would be BlairHill Properties Inc. Hodges showed a cost comparison
between the benefits of a Tax Increment District vs. no Tax Increment District.
Heuton asked what the next step was. Rounds replied an affordable housing plan would be
developed as part of the project plan. Gustafson asked how many units would be part of the
plan. Rounds responded 65 single-family lots and some multi-family units would be built.
Kurtz asked how the utility installation costs would be shared. Lanning replied that Brookings
Municipal Utilities would pay oversize costs
108
S:\City Engrs\TID\Valley View\Valley View Addition.pdf
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of
Brookings:
B. Action to approve the PROJECT PLAN for Tax Incremental
District Number Three (3), City of Brookings.
Applicant: Blairhill Properties, Inc.
Proposal: Review and act on the various elements of a tax increment project plan as
required by SDCL Chapter 11-9.
Background: The Planning Commission recommended approval for the creation and
declaration of boundaries of Tax Increment District # 3 on May 6, 2008. A resolution
will be forwarded to the City Council recommending approval at a future meeting.
Specifics: The following excerpts from SDCL 11-9 pertain to a project plan:
11-9-13. Recommendation of project plan by commission--Statement of
improvements proposed, costs, and plan for financing. In order to implement the
provisions of this chapter, the planning commission shall prepare and adopt a project
plan for each tax incremental district and submit the plan to the governing body. The
plan shall include a statement listing:
(1) The kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements
within the district;
(2) An economic feasibility study;
(3) A detailed list of estimated project costs;
(4) A fiscal impact statement which shows the impact of the tax increment district,
both until and after the bonds are repaid, upon all entities levying taxes upon
property in the district; and
(5) A description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs and the
time when related costs or monetary obligations are to be incurred.
No expenditure may be provided for in the plan more than five years after a
district is created unless an amendment is adopted by the governing body under
§ 11-9-23.
11-9-14 Definition of project costs. "Project costs" are any expenditures made or
estimated to be made, or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred, by
a municipality which are listed in a project plan as costs of public works or
improvements within a tax incremental district, plus any costs incidental thereto,
diminished by any income, special assessments, or other revenues, other than tax
increments, received, or reasonably expected to be received, by the municipality in
connection with the implementation of the plan.
113
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
11-9-15. Specific items included in project costs. Project costs include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Capital costs, including the actual costs of the construction of public works or
improvements, buildings, structures, and permanent fixtures; the demolition, alteration,
remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of existing buildings, structures, and permanent
fixtures; the acquisition of equipment; the clearing and grading of land; and the amount
of interest payable on tax incremental bonds or notes issued pursuant to this chapter
until such time as positive tax increments to be received from the district, as estimated
by the project plan, are sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the tax
incremental bonds or notes when due;
(2) Financing costs, including all interest paid to holders of evidences of indebtedness
issued to pay for project costs, any premium paid over the principal amount thereof
because of the redemption of such obligations prior to maturity and a reserve for the
payment of principal of and interest on such obligations in an amount determined by the
governing body to be reasonably required for the marketability of such obligations;
(3) Real property assembly costs, including the actual cost of the acquisition by a
municipality of real or personal property within a tax incremental district less any
proceeds to be received by the municipality from the sale, lease, or other disposition of
such property pursuant to a project plan;
(4) Professional service costs, including those costs incurred for architectural,
planning, engineering, and legal advice and services;
(5) Imputed administrative costs, including reasonable charges for the time spent by
municipal employees in connection with the implementation of a project plan;
(6) Relocation costs;
(7) Organizational costs, including the costs of conducting environmental impact and
other studies and the costs of informing the public of the creation of tax incremental
districts and the implementation of project plans; and
(8) Payments made, at the discretion of the governing body, which are found to be
necessary or convenient to the creation of tax incremental districts or the
implementation of project plans.
11-9-16. Statement as to zoning and property use impact--Relocation methods. The
plan required by § 11-9-13 shall also include:
(1) A map showing the existing uses and conditions of real property in the district;
(2) A map showing the proposed improvements and uses therein;
(3) A map showing the proposed changes of zoning ordinances;
114
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
(4) A statement listing changes needed in the master plan, map, building codes, and
municipal ordinances;
(5) A list of estimated nonproject costs; and
(6) A statement of a proposed method for the relocation of persons to be displaced.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of the project plan.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
115
0
TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT
NUMBER THREE,
CITY OF BROOKINGS
TAX INCREMENTAL PROJECT
PLAN
1
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose........................................................................2
Section 2. General Definitions....................................................................................2
Section 3. Tax Increment District Legal Description. ..............................................5
Section 4. Listing of Kind, Number, Location and detailed costs of proposed
public works and improvements......................................................................................6
A. Costs of Public Works or Improvements......................................................6
Section 5. Detailed Project Costs..............................................................................7
Section 6. Fiscal Impact Statement..........................................................................8
Section 7. Method of Financing, timing of costs and methods of payment.....8
Section 8. Maximum Amount of Note, Bond or other Monetary Obligation.....8
Section 9. Duration of Tax Incremental Plan...........................................................8
Section 10. Estimated Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Revenues of
Taxing Jurisdictions..............................................................................................................8
Section 11. The legal description of the eligible property is provided in
Attachment 1.......................................................................................................................9
Section 12. Statement of Displacement and Relocation.....................................9
Section 13. Changes to the City of Brookings master plan, map, buildings
codes and City ordinances...............................................................................................9
Section 14. List of Estimated Non-project Costs.......................................................9
Section 15. Impact on School District.......................................................................9
Feasibility Study............................................................................................................20
Feasibility Study............................................................................................................22
BLIGHT STUDY................................................................................................................23
Existing Conditions...................................................................................................25
Background and Definition of the Study Area ..............................................25
Existing Land Use .....................................................................................................25
Vacant and Underutilized Properties ..................................................................25
Public Improvements..............................................................................................25
CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................25
2
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose.
The purpose of this plan, to be implemented by the City of Brookings, is to
satisfy the requirements for a Tax Incremental District Plan Number Three, City of
Brookings as specified in SDCL Chapter 11-9. There are 11 mandated
requirements of the plan, each to be addressed in this plan. The principal
purpose of the plan is to define eligible property and to define a tax increment
plan for funding eligible activities of a functionally obsolete and blighted area of
the City.
Section 2. General Definitions.
The following terms when found in this plan shall have the meaning set forth in
this section 2 unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
"Blighted" means property that meets any of the following criteria:
I. Any area, including slum area, in which the structures, buildings, or
improvements, by reason of:
(1) dilapidation, age, or obsolescence;
(2) inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open
spaces;
(3) high density of population and overcrowding;
(4) the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire
and other causes; or
(5) any combination of such factors;
are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality,
juvenile delinquency, or crime, and which is detrimental to the public
health, safety, morals, or welfare, is a blighted area. SDCL § 11-9-9
II. Any area which by reason of:
(1) the presence of a substantial number of substandard, slum,
deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;
(2) predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts;
(3) faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or
usefulness;
(4) unsanitary or unsafe conditions;
(5) deterioration of site or other improvements;
(6) diversity of ownership, tax, or special assessment delinquency
exceeding the fair value of the land;
(7) defective or unusual conditions of title;
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
3
(8) the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire
and other causes; or
(9) any combination of such factors;
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality,
retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an
economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health,
safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use, is a blighted
area. SDCL § 11-9-10
III. Any area which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete
platting, diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site
improvements, or otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound
growth of a municipality, is a blighted area. SDCL § 11-9-11.
"City of Brookings" means Brookings, South Dakota, a home rule city.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Brookings.
"Department of Revenue" means the South Dakota Department of Revenue.
"Economic Development" means all powers expressly granted and
reasonably inferred pursuant to SDCL 9-54.
"Fiscal year" means that fiscal year of the City of Brookings.
"Generally Applicable Taxes" shall have the same meaning as set forth in 26
CFR § 1.141-4(e).
"Governing Body" means the City Council.
"Infrastructure Improvements" means a street, road, sidewalk, parking facility,
pedestrian mall, alley, bridge, sewer, sewage treatment plant, property
designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the spread of identified soil or
groundwater contamination, drainage system, waterway, waterline, water
storage facility, rail line, utility line or pipeline, or other similar or related structure
or improvement, together with necessary easements for the structure or
improvement, for the benefit of or for the protection of the health, welfare, or
safety of the public generally.
"Municipality" any incorporated City in this state.
"Planning commission" means the city planning commission.
“Plan” means this Project Plan.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
4
“Project Costs” " means any expenditure or monetary obligations by the City
of Brookings, whether made, estimated to be made, incurred or estimated to be
incurred, which are listed un Section 4.1. Project costs will include any costs
incidental thereto but diminished by any income, special assessments, or other
revenues, other than tax increments, received, or reasonably expected to be
received, by the City of Brookings in connection with the implementation of this
Plan.
“Project Description” means The anticipated dwellings within the TIF District
shall consist of single family dwellings with square footage ranging from @1000 to
@1600 square feet in size and ranging from two bedrooms to four bedrooms, one
to two bathrooms, and all with attached double garages and all at or under the
current SDHA limit for low to moderate income housing of $160,000. Future
increase in this maximum SDHA limit as a result of increased market and
construction costs may result in an increase in the maximum price for low to
moderate income housing. It is further anticipated that there will be
condominium and townhouse units for single family ownership constructed within
the district in the future which shall be priced in the low $100’s based upon
current cost on construction.”
“Project Plan” means the plan required by SDCL § 11-9-13.
"Public Works" means the acquisition by purchase or condemnation of real
and personal property within the tax incremental district and the sale, lease, or
other disposition of such property to private individuals, partnerships,
corporations, or other entities at a price less than the cost of such acquisition
which benefit or further the health, safety, welfare and economic development
of the City.
"Taxable property" all real taxable property located in a tax incremental
district;
"Tax increment valuation" is the total value of the tax incremental district
minus the tax incremental base pursuant to § 11-9-19.
"Tax Incremental District" a contiguous geographic area within a City defined
and created by resolution of the governing body and named City of Brookings
Tax Incremental District Number Two;
“Tax Increment Law” means South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 11-9.
{Remainder of Page Left Blank}
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
5
Section 3. Tax Increment District Legal Description.
The real property to be located with in the Tax Increment District is shown in
Diagram 1 below and legally described as:
The north one-half (1/2) of the NE 1/4 of Section 3 Township 109 north
range 50 west, excluding the west 755 feet, all of Esther Heights
Addition, and the south 78 feet of the east 1.159 feet thereof and
including the south half of the abutting 20th Street right-of-way, the
south half of the 20th Street South right-of-way extending west from the
Western Avenue South intersection a distance of 1.159 feet and the
west 238 feet of the Martin Boulevard right-of-way.
Diagram 1.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
6
Section 4. Listing of Kind, Number, Location and detailed costs of proposed
public works and improvements.
In order to implement the provisions of SDCL Chapter 11-9, the following are
project costs and expenditures made or estimated to be made and the
monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred by the City. The
Project costs includes capital costs, financing costs, real property assembly costs,
professional fee costs, imputed administration costs, relocation costs,
organizational costs and discretionary costs, plus any costs incidental thereto,
diminished by any income, special assessments, or other revenues, other than tax
increments, received, or reasonably expected to be received, by the City.
The City is working to develop an economic and competitive base to benefit
the City and the State as a whole. All the project costs are found to be
necessary and convenient to the creation of the tax incremental district and the
implementation of the Tax Increment District. The project constitutes a proper
public purpose of the City. The City shall enter into all contracts in accordance
with South Dakota bid laws.
A. Costs of Public Works or Improvements
In accordance with SDCL 11-9-13(1) & (3) the following is the kind, number,
location and dollar amount of estimated project costs.
PROJECT COSTS LOCATION NUMBER
Capital Costs
Public Works $
1,192,928.00
Public Right
of way
See
Schedule
1
Public Improvement
Buildings
Structures
Permanent Fixtures
Demolition of existing
buildings
Alteration of Existing
Buildings
Remodeling of existing
buildings
Repair of existing buildings
Acquisition of equipment
Clearing and grading of
land
$
45,000.00
Public Right
of way
See
Schedule
1
Capitalized interest $ 1,237,928.00 Public Right
of way
See
Schedule
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
7
1
Financing Costs
Interest
Premium
Reserve $
-
Real Property Assembly
Professional service costs
Architectural
Planning
Engineering
Legal $15,000
Services $20,000 $
-
Imputed administrative costs
Relocation Costs
Organizational costs
Environmental impact
studies
Other studies
Informational meetings $
-
Discretionary costs /
Contingency
$77,072
TOTAL $ 1,350,000 Public Right
of way
See
Schedule
1
Any expenditure made beyond the fifth anniversary of the creation of the Tax
Increment District would require an amendment of this plan under SDCL §11-9-
23.
Section 5. Detailed Project Costs.
Attached as Schedule 1 is a detailed list of estimated project costs. No
expenditure for project costs is provided for more than five years after the district
is created.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
8
Section 6. Fiscal Impact Statement.
Attached as Schedule 3 is the Fiscal Impact Statement on other taxing
districts found within the Tax Increment District, both until and after the bonds are
repaid.
Section 7. Method of Financing, timing of costs and methods of payment.
Project costs shall be paid by the proceeds of tax incremental revenue
bonds, notes or other monetary obligation. There shall be no advances by the
City. The City may reimburse for employee time from the tax increments at the
end of the plan after payment of all bonds.
Section 8. Maximum Amount of Note, Bond or other Monetary Obligation.
The maximum amount of bonded indebtedness shall depend on the
anticipated revenues from the tax increment and is anticipated not to exceed
$1,350,000.00 or such lesser amount as may be feasible with the estimated
revenue generated by the Tax Increment District.
Section 9. Duration of Tax Incremental Plan
The duration of the plan will extend to the number of years it will take for the
retirement of bonded indebtedness except that the plan duration shall not
exceed 20 years from the date of creation of the District.
Section 10. Estimated Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Revenues of
Taxing Jurisdictions
The site will generate taxes to the local jurisdictions at the current level of
development on the property. All taxing districts shall receive that base which
will be the value set for 2009 taxable payable in 2010. The new tax revenues will
be available to the taxing jurisdictions 20 years after the development is
completed or earlier if the actual collections are greater than anticipated.
Schedule 3 details the tax capture implications to each of the local taxing
jurisdictions.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
9
Section 11. The legal description of the eligible property is provided in
Attachment 1.
A general list of real property improvements subject to property tax at the site
is listed in Attachment 2.
Section 12. Statement of Displacement and Relocation.
No residents or families will be displaced by the project. There are no families
or persons residing on the premises. Therefore, no relocation plan is needed.
Section 13. Changes to the City of Brookings master plan, map, buildings
codes and City ordinances.
The City has made no changes in the master plan, map, building codes and
City ordinances as indicated on Attachment 3.
Section 14. List of Estimated Non-project Costs.
Developer Improvements Dollar Amount of Improvements
Non Project - Housing
Improvements
$5,350,000 Phase 1
$6,400,000Additional Phases
Section 15. Impact on School District.
The school districts will receive the taxes on the base value of the parcels
within the District and the taxes to be raised on the tax incremental value will be
used to repay the bonds for the project improvements for a maximum of a 20-
year period. After the repayment of the bonds, the school district will receive
their proportionate share of tax dollars for the base value and the tax
incremental value.
The taxing entities located within the District may be required to raise an
additional levy for revenue loss from the formation of the District.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
10
ATTACHMENTS
Map and Legal Description and existing uses and conditions
Map of Real property Improvement and uses
Map of proposed changes in zoning ordinances
LIST OF SCHEDULES
SCHEDULE 1 Detail of Project Costs
SCHEDULE 2 Estimated Captured Taxable Values
SCHEDULE 3 Revenues from Capturable Taxable Value by Local Jurisdiction
SCHEDULE 4 Schedule According to Agreement
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
11
ATTACHMENT 1
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
rho
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
12
TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
13
ATTACHMENT 2
(List of Real Property Improvements)
The real property improvements include:
Description Amount
Structures
Site Work & Improvements
$11,750,000
1,350,000
TOTAL $13,100,000
The Improvements shall be located in the real property described in Attachment 1 and
is the highest and best use for the real property.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
14
ATTACHMENT 3
(ZONING CHANGES)
The following map indicates that there the property is currently zoned residential and
that no zoning changes will take place.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
15
SCHEDULE 1 – "DETAIL OF PROJECT COSTS"
(See attached Quote)
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
16
SCHEDULE 2
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
17
SCHEDULE 3-FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Fiscal Impact Statements
Tax Increment District Number 3
Introduction
The fiscal impact statement is intended to provide a succinct analysis of the estimated
impact of the Tax Increment District to the public pursuant to SDCL § 11-9-13(4). It is not
intended to rival the level of detail required by a detailed financial analysis.
Fiscal Impact Statement
A fiscal impact statement shows the impact of the tax increment district, both until and
after the bonds or obligations are repaid, upon all entities levying taxes upon property in
the district.
Definitions
“Fiscal Impact” means the increase or decrease in revenues and generally refers
to an impact to revenues caused by the district.
“Revenue” means ad valorem taxes.
“Assumptions” means factors or definitions used in the fiscal analysis. Assumptions
may include facts and figures identified by the District and educated guesses that are
sometimes necessary when not all of the information is available. Assumptions are often
used to extrapolate an estimate. Assumptions may include an estimate of tax levies of
each taxing entity, the school aid formula contribution, the value of the real property, etc.
Assumptions:
1. The property will have improvements which at completion will be valued for
taxable purposes at 5 million to 11 million dollars.
2. The average tax levy of all taxing districts will be $25.00 per thousand dollars of
taxable valuation.
3. Tax increment will start to be collected in 2010 for a maximum of 18 years.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
18
4. This is the maximum amount of tax increment that could be derived from the
district.
Estimate
Brookings School
District $ 5.13 $ 27,445.50 $ 494,019.00
City of Brookings $ 2.74 $ 14,659.00 $ 263,862.00
Brookings County $ 17.13 $ 91,645.50 $ 1,649,619.00
TOTAL $ 25.00 $ 133,750.00 $ 2,407,500.00
After the termination of the District, the taxing entities will receive all tax increment as
part of their general levy tax collections.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
19
SCHEDULE 4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND
BLIGHT STUDY
City of Brookings, South Dakota
20
Feasibility Study
INTRODUCTION
Blair Hill Properties (“Developer”) has proposed a housing project (the “TIF 3”) at
a site located in the south west portion of the City of Brookings described in the tax
increment financing proposal submitted by Developer to the Brookings City Council.
The development of the TIF 3 is development of affordable housing units and
without the City’s financial participation and support, the TIF 3 could not be constructed.
An essential component of the City’s participation is City funding for the construction of
public sewer, water, road and other infrastructure improvements (“Project Costs”)
needed to support the Project (or any other comprehensive development of the site).
Total project costs to complete the entire project are estimated at $1,350,000. Phase 1
of the project will not exceed $535,000 to construct the 35 lots for development. Once
Phase 1 is complete, the developer can then petition the City for the remaining amount
of TIF funds available in the TIF Plan. No portion of the tax increment district revenues
shall be used to construct housing units as described in SDCL 11-9.
The City has made it clear that City funding for these public improvements must
be supported by the tax revenues generated by the Project, and not by the general
revenues of the City. The vehicle through which this can be accomplished is “tax
increment financing” under the South Dakota Tax Incremental District Law (South
Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 11-9). Tax increment financing is an indispensable self-
financing tool used throughout the United States to help local governments successfully
develop and redevelop areas and encourage economic development.
In tax increment financing, the current real property tax assessed value of all
properties in a designated project area (“tax increment financing district”) is
established as the “base value.” As development in the tax increment financing district
increases the assessed values of the redeveloped properties, a portion of the additional
tax revenue generated by the increase in assessed value over the base value is set
aside and committed by the City for debt service on tax increment bonds, the
proceeds of which would be used for the acquisition or construction of the Project
Costs.
Tax increment financing is permitted only in connection with a “project plan”
duly adopted by the City. The process is set forth in the Tax Increment District Law, and
is generally as follows:
· Any person may request the City Council to designate a tax increment
financing district. The request may be through a formal application
process, or a presentation to the City Council. Upon receiving any
request, the City Council determines preliminary feasibility of the project.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
21
This preliminary feasibility determination includes fiscal, legal and political
considerations.
· If it is determined feasible, the City Council directs staff or the planning
commission to initiate the process. The planning commission then sets a
proposed hearing date and starts the notice procedure.
· Notice of the intent to create a tax increment district is published and sent
to all taxing districts not less than 10 days prior to the hearing.
· The planning commission holds a hearing and allows members of the
general public to comment upon the proposed creation of a tax
increment district. At the end of the hearing, the planning commission
may recommend the creation of the tax increment district to the City
Council.
· The City Council places the recommendation on the agenda and at the
public meeting may pass a resolution to create the tax increment district
in accordance with the Tax Increment District Law. The resolution is
published and becomes effective on the 21st day after publication, unless
it is referred to a vote of the electors.
· After the resolution becomes effective, the Department of Revenue of the
State of South Dakota is sent a letter requesting to determine the base.
· Once the base is determined, a tax increment project plan is prepared by
or at the direction of the planning commission, approved and forwarded
to the City Council for their determination.
· Once the project plan is approved by the City Council, the City has five
years to spend tax increment revenues or bond proceeds on or for project
costs.
· After the project plan is approved, the City Council is authorized to issue
by resolution tax increment bonds “for the purpose of carrying out or
administering a project plan”. The resolution would irrevocably pledge its
tax increment revenues to the debt service on the City’s tax increment
bonds. (See Tax Increment District Law Section 11-9-37).
The Developer has requested that the City issue tax increment bonds in the amount
necessary to cover the costs of construction of the public improvements, infrastructure
and road and bond issuance and related financing costs (including capitalized interest
and a reserve fund), currently estimated to total approximately $535,000 for phase I
only. All additional phases will be feasible in accordance with the ability to pay from
the assessed valuations.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
22
Feasibility Study
The following study indicates the project is feasible.
Assumption:
1. Housing construction Projections attached as F1.
2. Dollars per thousand levy = $25 per $1000 of assessed valuation.
3. Duration = not to exceed 20 years from creation of the district
4. Interest rate = 4.00%.
5. Capitalized interest period < 18 months.
6. Tax increment collection beginning in year 2010.
Loan
Semi-Annual Accrued Balance Cap Coverage @ Excess
Date Principle Interest P & I Net Revenue Interest Outstanding Interest 1.00x Coverage
535,000.00
12/01/08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,916.67 543,916.67 8,916.67 0.00 0.00
06/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,878.33 554,795.00 10,878.33 0.00 0.00
12/01/09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,095.90 565,890.90 11,095.90 0.00 0.00
06/01/10 494.68 11,317.82 11,812.50 11,812.50 0.00 565,396.22 0.00 11,812.50 0.00
12/01/10 504.58 11,307.92 11,812.50 11,812.50 0.00 564,891.64 0.00 11,812.50 0.00
06/01/11 30,889.67 11,297.83 42,187.50 42,187.50 0.00 534,001.97 0.00 42,187.50 0.00
12/01/11 31,507.46 10,680.04 42,187.50 42,187.50 0.00 502,494.51 0.00 42,187.50 0.00
06/01/12 50,137.61 10,049.89 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 452,356.90 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
12/01/12 51,140.36 9,047.14 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 401,216.54 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
06/01/13 52,163.17 8,024.33 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 349,053.37 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
12/01/13 53,206.43 6,981.07 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 295,846.94 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
06/01/14 54,270.56 5,916.94 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 241,576.38 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
12/01/14 55,355.97 4,831.53 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 186,220.41 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
06/01/15 56,463.09 3,724.41 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 129,757.32 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
12/01/15 57,592.35 2,595.15 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 72,164.97 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
06/01/16 58,744.20 1,443.30 60,187.50 60,187.50 0.00 13,420.77 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
12/01/16 13,420.77 268.42 13,689.19 13,689.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
06/01/17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,187.50 0.00
565,890.90 97,485.79 663,376.69 663,376.69 30,890.90 30,890.90 2,154,375.00 0.00
NOTE AMORTIZATION REVENUE BREAKDOWN
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
23
BLIGHT STUDY
This section presents an analysis of existing buildings, or lack thereof, and lot conditions
within the proposed development project area (the “Study Area”). The Study Area is
depicted in Attachment 1 “Proposed Tax Increment District Project Area Boundary”.
The development project proposed for the Study Area is the TIF 3, which consists of
approximately 20 acres square feet of potential residential development. In order to
provide economic development by providing affordable residential lots, tax increment
bonds are proposed to issued by the City to fund the certain public project costs and
cause construction of the land preparation, infrastructure, sewer, water and other
improvements required to sustain the TIF 3. No portion of the proceeds of the tax
increment bonds will be used to construct or rehabilitate residential housing units.
The proposed development project is being considered in accordance with the
provisions of the Tax Increment District Law, which grants municipalities the power to
redevelop blighted areas or cause them to be redeveloped by private parties, and
fund the costs of public improvements through the issuance of tax increment bonds
and/or notes.
Blight is a legally defined term and is found in the Tax Increment District Law Sections 11-
9-9 through 11-9-11.
Any area, including slum area, in which the structures, buildings, or improvements,
by reason of:
(1) Dilapidation, age, or obsolescence;
(2) Inadequate provisions for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open
spaces.
(3) High density of population and overcrowding;
(4) The existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and
other causes; or
(5) Any combination of such factors;
are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile
delinquency, or crime, and which is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare, is a blighted area.
Any area which by reason of:
(1) The presence of a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated, or
deteriorating structures;
(2) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layouts;
(3) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;
(4) Insanitary or unsafe conditions;
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
24
(5) Deterioration of site or other improvements;
(6) Diversity of ownership, tax, or special assessment delinquency exceeding the
fair value of the land;
(7) Defective or unusual conditions of title;
(8) The existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other
causes; or
(9) Any combination of such factors;
substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, retards the provision
of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a
menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use,
is a blighted area.
The site has no street layout, lack of sewer, lack of storm sewer, impairs sound growth
and retards housing accommodation.
· Any area which is predominantly open and which because of obsolete platting,
diversity of ownership, deterioration of structures or of site improvements, or
otherwise, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of a municipality, is a
blighted area.
This study: (1) surveys and analyzes the Study Area to determine if it is blighted within the
meaning of the Tax Increment District Law; and (2) assesses the feasibility of conducting
a development project (which is proposed to be the TIF 3) in the Study Area in
accordance with Tax Increment District Law. Field inspections of the Study Area were
conducted in 2008. In addition, aerial photographs and City land use and property
data were reviewed, and building and site conditions, existing land uses, including
under-utilization of land, parcel sizes and configurations, and other factors which may
contribute to blighting were analyzed.
The following conditions were observed in the Study Area:
1) lack of water mains and fire protection;
2) faulty lot layout in relation to its size, adequacy, accessibility and
usefulness;
3) inadequate streets and street access;
4) underutilized parcel; and,
5) incidence of significant deterioration or entire lack of public
infrastructure including roads, sidewalks, curbs and storm drainage. The detailed
results of the survey are presented below.
City of Brookings
Tax Increment Distinct Number 3
25
Existing Conditions
Background and Definition of the Study Area
The Study Area boundary, as shown in Exhibit 1, “Proposed Tax Increment District
Project Area Boundary,” was drawn to include the TIF 3 sites, and other properties likely
to benefit directly and indirectly, from the public improvements proposed to be made
in the Study Area. It was observed that other surrounding areas were not served by
public services which due to the density, there exists risk to life and property by fire.
The boundary of the Study Area encompasses all tax parcels within the
boundary described generally as follows:
The boundary starts at a point which is formed by the northern, western,
southern, and eastern boundaries as shown hereafter.
Existing Land Use
The Study Area comprises a total of approximately 20 acres, and contains bare
ground. Even though the area is in the City limits, there are no city services. In addition,
the area abuts another development which was developed without adequate city
services. There exists lack of sanitation which is conducive to ill health, transmission of
disease, infant mortality, and which is detrimental to the public health, safety.
Vacant and Underutilized Properties
The entire district is vacant and underutilized.
Public Improvements
The existing infrastructure systems in the Study Area, including the water mains and
combined storm and sanitary sewer lines are obsolete and inadequate for any
comprehensive development program. The area suffers from lack of all services.
CONCLUSIONS
The Study Area is a blighted area under the criteria set forth in the Tax Increment
District Law, and the existing conditions warrant the preparation by the City of a plan
for a development project in the Study Area.
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
June 3, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on June 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were
David Kurtz, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, Mike Cameron, and Fargen. Curt Ness, Larry Fjeldos, John
Gustafson, Stacey Howlett were absent. Also present were Mike McClemans, David Nelson,
James Weiss, Toby Morris, Keith Rounds, Scott Hodges, City Manager Jeff Weldon, City
Engineer Jackie Lanning, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #8 – BlairHill Properties, Inc. has submitted a project plan for Tax Increment District 3.
(Cameron/Heuton) Motion to approve the project plan. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
_______________________
_________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson
Brookings City Planner
144
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
May 5, 2008
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on June 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present were
David Kurtz, Al Gregg, Al Heuton, Mike Cameron, and Fargen. Curt Ness, Larry Fjeldos, John
Gustafson, Stacey Howlett were absent. Also present were Mike McClemans, David Nelson,
James Weiss, Toby Morris, Keith Rounds, Scott Hodges, City Manager Jeff Weldon, City
Engineer Jackie Lanning, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #8 – City Manager Jeff Weldon stated that the area in TID#3 was for housing
development. The goal was to provide a house and lot for $160,000 or less. The development
would be tied to South Dakota Housing Development Authority rules. Weldon added that the
project was a “pay-as-you-go” plan which was different than most. The developers front the
costs and are reimbursed over time. If the project plan were approved, a development
agreement would be attached prior to approval by the City Council.
Toby Morris, Vice President of Northland Securities, stated that South Dakota Housing
had a specific program for TIDs. The financial risk was all on the developer, and the City was in
control to the end.
Cameron asked how Esther Heights would be affected. Keith Rounds of BlairHill
Properties, Inc. stated the new 12 inch water line would connect into Esther Heights and
increase the water pressure for that subdivision.
Morris stated that state law allows a county to levy additional taxes to compensate for
funds lost to a TID. These taxes would go to the general fund.
The project plan involved two phases. Phase I would have $535,000 in infrastructure
improvements. There were 35 homes targeted for construction during that phase. Heuton
asked how many homes would be provided with services for the entire 1.3 million dollar
estimated project costs. Morris replied all 65 homes and condominium development within the
R-3 District.
Heuton felt that houses in the $150,000 to $160,000 range were being built now
without a TIF. Rounds felt that the TIF would help save about $14,000 per house. Scott Hodges
of BlairHill Properties, Inc., stated a two (2) bedroom, one (1) bath home sells for $149,000
while their three (3) bedroom, two (2) bath house in the TIF District would sell for $140,000.
Heuton asked if all developers requested TIFs, how could they be denied. Rounds
responded that a TIF plan was not easy to do, and the payoff is way down the road. Morris
added that only about 1 in 5 developers use TIFs.
145
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Fargen noted that Phase II was more expensive than Phase I. Rounds stated that they
tried to maximize the square footage of construction and minimize costs in Phase I. Fargen
asked how structured the payments were to the South Dakota Housing Development
Authority. Morris replied that they are completely projected, but it was preferred that the last
five (5) years of the TID would have no more payments.
Fargen asked who decides if a developer is credible. Weldon responded that it would be
SDHDA. Morris added that a letter of commitment would be required.
Heuton recommended that language in the developer’s agreement include details as to
the house design and style in order to set some standard for future proposals.
The meeting was adjourned.
_______________________
_________________________
Dan Hanson, Secretary Greg Fargen, Chairperson
Brookings City Planner
146
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
14. Action to approve Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of
Brookings:
C. Action to approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for
Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City of
Brookings.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Development Agreement; Valley View Addition
Attached is a development agreement between the City and the developers for specific
terms and conditions for the development of Valley View Addition. The purpose of this
agreement is to identify certain requirements that are a part of the project but not
necessarily included in the tax increment project plan. The TIF plan needs to be
submitted to the County and State so any specific issues pertinent to the project of local
interest that may not be of interest or concern to other entities from a tax increment
perspective are promulgated in the development agreement.
147
Page 1
Drafted By Todd Meierhenry
Danforth & Meierhenry, LLP
315 S. Phillips Ave.
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
(605) 336-3075
DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on ____________, 2008, by and between the city of Brookings, a municipal
corporation of the state of South Dakota and the county of Brookings called the city, and Blair Hill Properties,
Inc. a South Dakota corporation, with its principal office located at 600 Blair Hill Circle, Brookings, South
Dakota, 57006-5459, called the developer, witness:
Whereas, the city of Brookings created Tax Increment District Number Three, the legal and map of the area
indicated below;
and;
Page 2
Whereas, Tax Increment Bond Proceeds will be used to assist in providing for certain project
costs; and
Whereas, the City wishes to place certain terms on the development in exchange for tax
increment funds used for infrastructure abutting affordable housing lots.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this
agreement, the parties, for themselves, their successors and assigns, hereby agree as follows:
1. Agreement Relating to Installation of Roads, Curbing, Pavements, Street Lights and
Fire Hydrants. The developer shall construct, except as hereafter provided in paragraph 2,
as provided for in the subdivision, all roads, curbing, pavement and other improvements,
including all catch basins and drainage facilities, monuments, street lights, and other
improvements of any nature whatsoever as set forth on the final plat dated June 12, 2007,
approved by the city engineer, and accompanying construction plans prepared by the city
engineer, and in accordance with all present state and local laws, present improvement
ordinances and regulations of the city of Brookings, South Dakota and in all respects
complete the subdivision in accordance with all maps, plans and specifications on file with
the planning board and local laws, ordinances and regulations. Where any such construction
has been partially completed prior to this agreement, developer agrees to complete them in
accordance with this paragraph.
2. Tax Increment District Number Three Project Costs. The City shall undertake and
construct such public improvements as are set forth in Tax Increment District Number Three
project plan in an amount not to exceed $535,000.
3. Conditions to run with the land. As a condition of provided the tax increment bond
proceeds, the Developer agrees to provide and construct affordable housing not less than 35
family housing units with a maximum sales price retail sales value of $160,000 in accordance
with South Dakota Housing Finance Agency guidelines which may be adjusted annually; and
be constructed in the subdivision to be affordable housing units. This agreement shall be
filed on the real property as evidence of said condition.
4. Acceptance of Improvements. The city shall not be responsible for road or other
improvements, maintenance or care until the same shall be accepted, nor shall the city
exercise any control over the improvements until accepted. Upon the proper completion of
these improvements and their approval by the city engineer, and if these improvements then
Page 3
comply with all present state laws, present city ordinances and planning board rules,
regulations and requirements, the city will then accept the improvements.
5. Public Right-of-Ways. The city represents that it has good title to the roads and public ways
in which the improvements will be installed, and agrees that the roadways and easements as
set out on its maps heretofore filed with the planning board are thereby dedicated, and that all
improvements and roads as required by the city and agreed to by the developer, including
water mains, hydrants and other appurtenances shall, upon completion and acceptance by the
city, be the property of the city.
6. General Requirements. It is agreed that the work to be performed hereunder shall be
completed within 18 months from the date of this agreement, unless the time is extended by
the city, which extension shall not be unreasonably withheld.
7. Run with the Land. This agreement shall run with the land, as shall also the covenants
herein contained, and shall be to the benefit of the city and its successor and assigns.
8. Guaranty of Bonds. If required by bond purchase, the Developer agrees to guaranty the Tax
Increment Bonds, Series 2008 of the City. It is understood that if there is not sufficient Tax
Increment Revenue for the debt service, the City will not be responsible for any shortfall.
9. Pay Agent. The City will act as the paying agent for the bonds.
10. Draw Down. The bond shall be drawn upon once the following has been completed:
10.1. Developer shall have demonstrate in writing to the reasonable satisfaction of the
City that said improvements have been made.
10.2. Developer shall have submitted invoices showing services / improvements have
been made.
11. Maintenance until Acceptance. The developer shall maintain, clean and snowplow such
roads until acceptance by the city. In the event of default of these obligations by the
developer, the city without notice to the developer, may do the same at the expense of the
developer.
12. Maximum price of developed parcel. The developer shall set the price of a completed
home and lot in an amount not to exceed $160,000 in 2008 and such prices shall not exceed
the affordability index as established by South Dakota Housing Development Authority
Page 4
which may be adjusted annually. There shall be no special assessments levied against any
parcel for the provision of infrastructure with the initial sale.
13. Homes to be constructed. The developer shall construct homes within the prescribed price
range in accordance with market conditions but shall be a variation of four different floor
plans ranging from 1,000 to 1600 finished square feet in size, shall be between two and three
bedrooms with one or two bathrooms and shall include double attached garages. It is further
anticipated there will be condominium and townhome units for single-family ownership
constructed within the district which shall be priced at approximately $100,000-$110,000
depending upon construction costs and market demand.
14. Termination of Agreement. Should the developer not adhere to the price restrictions of the
homes, the City reserves the right to terminate payments on the TIF Bond, regardless if there
is any outstanding principal of the bond.
In witness whereof, etc.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
____________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
City Clerk
SEAL
Page 5
BLAIRHILL PROPERTIES, INC.
_______________________
President
ATTEST:
_________________________
Secretary
SEAL
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Other Business.
15. Discussion of financing plan for Innovation Campus.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Financing plan for Innovation Campus infrastructure improvements
One of our major goals for this and succeeding years is the financing and installation of
infrastructure for the SDSU Innovation Campus. Attached is a Project Description Sheet of
this goal. As you know, the Growth Partnership is the governing body overseeing the
development of this research park. The first multi-tenant building is under construction and
will serve as the “flagship” building for the campus. The second building, the Seed Tech facility,
is slated to be under construction shortly thereafter.
The property remains under ownership of SDSU/Board of Regents through a lease to the
Growth Partnership. The property is included in Tax Increment District #1 which includes
numerous other developed parcels (see attachment). The Growth Partnership has divided the
infrastructure into four phases. The first phase provides for a site entrance from 22nd Avenue
and a “round-about” to the new building and associated utilities. The Growth Partnership has
secured funding for this phase, advertised, and held a bid opening for this portion of the project.
The low bidder was Bowes Construction and construction is slated to begin soon.
Phases II and III provide for a road and utilities around the perimeter of the park while Phase IV
provides for two intersecting internal streets. The Growth Partnership is considering a
modification to Phase IV which would “downgrade” these streets to serve more like traffic
lanes in a parking lot. The attached Project Description Sheet describes the latest cost
estimates of the respective phases but does not yet include the cost of decorative street lights
on the entrance to the park from 22nd Avenue. Traditional street lights would service the rest
of the streets while “upgraded” decorative lights would service the entrance drive. These lights
come with an “upcharge” from BMU. At the time of writing this memo, this cost has not yet
been determined.
The question becomes one of determining a means of financing this infrastructure.
Pursuant to our policy, and the conventional manner would be to treat this as a privately-
developed industrial park. Like most subdivisions, the developer finances the costs of
infrastructure to service the subdivision, builds the project to applicable city standards, and
dedicates the public infrastructure to the city to maintain in perpetuity. The developer
recovers their cost through the sale of the property for private development. In “piecemeal”
development of industrial parks, the City sometimes pays for the costs of streets and storm
drainage system. On a more infrequent basis, the City may pay for the water and sewer mains.
Since this project is uniquely different from any other development, our standard policies are
problematic. BMU has indicated they will assist us with financing associated water and sewer
but only if there is some method of reimbursement acceptable to the Board.
153
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
Theoretically, tax increment revenue generated from private development in the research park
could pay for such infrastructure. That can occur only if private development occurs over the
duration of the district. So far, the first two buildings are tax exempt so they generate no
property taxes, and thus, no increment. Tax increment revenue from private development
outside the park but inside the TIF district could also pay for such infrastructure. Both of these
development scenarios are speculative right now but there may be a private project in the
district in the early stages of consideration that could generate tax increment revenue for the
Innovation Campus research park. However, it is most likely that such development will also
wish to lay claim to such increment meaning the list of expenditures wishing to use a limited
amount of generated increment may result in a shortfall.
It is important to note the five-year “knock-down” rule is underway meaning a tax increment
district has only five years from the date of certification to complete all infrastructure projects
in order to use increment to pay for them. That means all tax increment-financed
infrastructure must be completed by May, 2012. However, the increment can be collected
over the 20 year duration of the district.
While tax increment may be the most advantageous revenue stream to service the debt, it only
becomes available over time and up-front construction costs still need to be financed. This
means the City will need to finance Phases II-IV (an aggregate amount in excess of $4 million)
between now and May, 2012 and we will need to issue debt to do so. If tax increment does
not materialize from private development in the district, the City will likely need to pledge its
sales tax authority to finance the debt service. Obviously, it is in the best interest of the City
to have tax increment be the preferred revenue stream as opposed to sales tax revenue. In the
event there is no increment for the debt service, we could also, as an option, have BMU pay for
the infrastructure out of their reserves and not use any sales tax revenue. Of course, such
costs could be off-set by any state or federal infrastructure grants we would be successful in
securing.
The City can secure a loan from the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) issued to BMU through the state’s revolving loan fund (RLF) program. The City would
then reimburse BMU for the debt service by either tax increment or sales tax revenue. The
advantage is that BMU is “made whole” through this transaction and the debt does not count
against our statutory debt limit. What’s more, interest rates are lower through the SRF
program and it is tailor-made for municipalities attempting to finance infrastructure. Under this
scenario, the SRF loan would be with BMU but the ultimate responsibility for making the debt
service payment would be the City.
I have asked our Financial Advisor, Toby Morris of Northland Securities, to begin the process
of the SRF application with First District Council of Governments. It will take several months
to work this process through the state but we will be able to have it ready for the construction
schedule of Phase II in 2009.
On a related issue, I strongly recommend the City insist on the dedication of necessary rights-
of-way and easements for this infrastructure. We simply should not finance, own, and
154
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
subsequently be responsible for maintaining infrastructure in property over which do not have
ownership or controlling interest.
The purpose of this memo is informational only and to ask if staff should continue to proceed
with making the necessary financing arrangements described above. Staff would appreciate
direction on this issue and your further thoughts on the topic. We stand ready to further
explore other avenues of financing this project you wish to consider.
Informational
155
City Council Meeting
June 10, 2008
159
16. Adjourn.