HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_07_08 CC PKTBrookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
1
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
(NO 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.
(NO Work Session)
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. Approval of City Council minutes.
C. Action to authorize the city manager to sign a Joint Powers Agreement for
Police Assistance between the City of Brookings and Brookings County.
D. Action on Resolution No. 55-08, correcting Resolution No. 48-08, a resolution
to annex approximately 7 acres of land into the City of Brookings (Outlot A in
the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W) adopted on June 24, 2008.
E. Action on a request from First Lutheran Church to abate a portion of the 2007
property taxes in the amount of $1,046.86 for property located OL “R” of
Section 23-110-50, also known as 408 8th Street. County Assessor recommends
approval.
F. Action to appoint Didem Koroglu to the Visitor Promotions Committee.
G. Action to appoint Penny Hauffe to the Human Rights Committee.
H. Action on Resolution No. 51-08, Awarding Bids for the 2008-09STI Riogrand,
Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley & Cumberland Court Street Project.
I. Action on Resolution No. 52-08, Awarding Bids for the 2008-04STA Alley
Assessment Project.
J. Action on Resolution No. 54-08, for vacation of utility easement on Lot 2, Block
3, Oyloes Addition.
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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
2
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
7. Mayoral Proclamations.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing is announced.
Public Hearings & Ordinances:
8. Public hearing and action on a housing moving request from Shaun and Jamie Hof to
move a Governor’s House from Springfield, SD, to Lot 33 and 33A, Meyer’s Second
Addition in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 11-T109N-R50W, also known as 306
Hawaii Drive.
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
9. Ordinance No. 29-08: Ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 38 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention.
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
10. Action on Resolution No. 56-08, establishing a fee and process for Temporary Off-Sale
Package Wine Licenses within the city of Brookings.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
11. Public hearing and action on a Temporary OFF-Sale Package Wine License for the South
Dakota Winegrowers Association on July 12 and 13 at Old Liquor Store location
(adjacent to Brookings Arts Festival).
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
12. Public hearing and action on Temporary ON-Sale Wine Retailers License for the South
Dakota Winegrowers Association on July 12 and 13 at Old Liquor Store location
(adjacent to Brookings Arts Festival).
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
13. Action on Resolution No. 57-08, Resolution authorizing Change Order #3 (CCO#3),
for 2008-03STI, Downtown Streetscape Project (this change order is for removal of an
unanticipated 2’x3’ steam tunnel in the 500 block of Main Avenue and the cost will be
paid by BMU.)
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
Other Business.
14. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
3
Brookings City Council
Scott Munsterman, Mayor
Tim Reed, Deputy Mayor
Mike Bartley, Council Member
Tom Bezdichek, Council Member
Ryan Brunner, Council Member
Mike McClemans, Council Member
Julie Whaley, Council Member
Council Staff:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Steven Britzman, City Attorney
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday @ 1pm, Thursday @ 7 pm , Friday @ 9 pm 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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
4
6:00 P.M. Meeting
CONSENT AGENDA #4
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Approval of City Council minutes from June 10, June 17 and June
24 meetings.
C. Action to authorize the city manager to sign a Joint Powers
Agreement for Police Assistance between the City of Brookings
and Brookings County.
D. Action on Resolution No. 55-08, correcting Resolution No. 48-08,
a resolution to annex approximately 7 acres of land into the City
of Brookings (Outlot A in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3-
T109N-R50W) adopted on June 24, 2008.
E. Action on a request from First Lutheran Church to abate a
portion of the 2007 property taxes in the amount of $1,046.86 for
property located OL “R” of Section 23-110-50, also known as 408
8th Street. County Assessor recommends approval.
F. Action to appoint Didem Koroglu to the Visitor Promotions
Committee.
G. Action to appoint Penny Hauffe to the Human Rights
Committee.
H. Action on Resolution No. 51-08, Awarding Bids for the
2008-09STI Riogrand, Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley &
Cumberland Court Street Project.
I. Action on Resolution No. 52-08, Awarding Bids for the 2008-
04STA Alley Assessment Project.
J. Action on Resolution No. 54-08, for vacation of utility easement
on Lot 2, Block 3, Oyloes Addition.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
5
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Approval of City Council minutes from June 10, June 17
and June 24 meetings.
Brookings City Council
June 10, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall
with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, Mike McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek. City
Manager Jeffrey Weldon, Assistant City Attorney Dick Smith, and City Clerk Shari Thornes
were also present.
Update from the Liquor Ad Hoc Committee. Jeffrey Weldon, City Manager, reported
the special liquor ad hoc committee has held two meetings and has taken a considerable
amount of public testimony as it is looking at putting together an ordinance relative to the new
law, Senate Bill 126. Weldon said City Attorney Steve Britzman has been working on this issue
with other city attorneys across the state, Department of Revenue staff and legislators to assist
with us this issue. The challenges have been looking at the provisions of the new law and
crafting language that works well with the system Brookings has currently in place relative to
home rule, the City’s operating agreements, and the City’s override system and other
provisions of the City’s existing ordinances for liquor licenses. As to a draft ordinance, he feels
the Committee has waded through the major provisions of the senate bill and have it well
addressed with the exception on one provision regarding what actually constitutes a license. Is
it a license because the City of Brookings maintains one license and promulgates through
various leases in the form of operating agreements as opposed to what the state is defining as a
license? In his consideration and discussion with the state, the state has told the City in regards
to the situation with the city of Brookings and its operating agreements, they are considering
licenses to be exacting what the law says, “licenses,” even though the City has a current lease
arrangement with the operating agreements. The City Attorney is of that same opinion. The
Committee had considerable discussion about that issue at their last meeting and there seems
to be fair amount of “wiggle” room for interpretation as to whether or not that was the intent
of legislative process. When looking at a literal reading or interpretation of the law, it seems to
indicate that for existing communities that have liquor licenses, that literal interpretation means
that the City of Brookings has but one license through operating agreements and that Section 8
of the bill may actually not apply. Weldon said there has been good discussion back and forth
and it was suggested at that last committee meeting that there may be a need to seek an
Attorney General opinion on that specific issue of the law. The Committee seemed to be
inclined to consider that. The Committee will be holding more meetings as soon as the City
Attorney returns from vacation.
Weldon said in addition to Senate Bill 126, there are a couple other new laws that were passed
by the Legislature this year relative to liquor licenses. He noted that these are not nearly as
significant or as controversial as this one, but they will need some local option ordinances to
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
6
address those. The Committee will tackle those as soon as it can get to the Council an
ordinance relative to Senate Bill 126.
Weldon said the law does provide that the City must adopt the license fee within 90 days of
enacting the ordinance (for Senate Bill 126). The City Council could proceed with the
language of the ordinance and then just wait to fill in the fee amount. Determining the fee of
the license or this type of an operating agreement with the restaurant license is the crux of the
matter where the Committee seems to be hitting some traction problems at this point.
Mayor Munsterman said the biggest thing would be for the Council is to have a discussion about
seeking an Attorney General opinion because Brookings is a lease market and he thinks the
City probably want to stay that way and there are varying degrees and ways of how to interpret
the law. He recently had a discussion with Yvonne Taylor, SD Municipal League Executive
Director, and her interpretation is that the City of Brookings can go with minimum per capita
amount. That’s the way it was lobbied and that’s the way the intent of the law was set and
now there are varying degrees of interpretation. His recommendation would be for the City
to seek an Attorney General opinion since the State Department of Revenue is saying one thing
and City of Brookings is saying another. Once and for all we’ll know and then past that point
the City can certainly, if the City is wrong in its interpretation, then we’ll know we need to go
to the legislature for so the City can retain its local option.
Bartley agreed that the City needs to pursue the Attorney General’s opinion. He said one of
the things that the Council needs to understand is when these bills are put together sometimes
there’s a little give and take and sometimes there are some unintended consequences. It wasn’t
the intent of the committees, as he attended the meetings and lobbied on this effort, that it be
for our community. It was intended for those who want licenses in first class communities
across the state -- that protects the value and that was done. It wasn’t ever imagined that it
would affect the City of Brookings and its operating agreements because they’re not owned.
He thinks there’s a difference of opinion with the Department of Revenue and he thinks they
are reading the bill literally, as the City Attorney is. We need that opinion from the Attorney
General’s office.
McClemans said he would wait for the Attorney’s General opinion and he would continue to
believe that it’s awfully hard to sell something you don’t own. The licenses are leases. They’ve
worked very well for 40 years and they still belong to the city.
Whaley said there have been some comments around town about the committee and the
people on the committee, and she asked the City Manager why there wasn’t a broader choice.
She noted that there were comments about Council Member Bartley, which his involvement in
Pierre, serving on the committee. She questioned why there weren’t members of the BEDC or
one of our legislators also on the committee. It is a concern that has been out there and she
told them she would get it brought up because she knew there’d be a lot of people watching
tonight.
Weldon said he was asked by the City Council to put together a committee. There is a
provision in Governance and Ends Policies which does allow the City Manager to ask for special
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
7
assistance from Council members when developing at a policy or looking at a specific issue.
We thought as a group it would be an exercise that would be well served outside the normal
scope of the city council meetings in terms of schedules and resources to be able to take the
time to dive into this issue with as much diligence as possible. We are operating on somewhat
of a time limitation. The new law does take effect on July 1st and we can begin our local
adoption process as soon as possible after July 1st. With the interest of the community in this
issue, we wanted to take advantage of this law as soon as possible so what he wanted to do is
provide somewhat of a schedule that would allow us to meet as soon as possible and keep this
process moving so we are ready to jump as soon after July 1st as possible. He noted that the
city did schedule a couple meetings with a little bit too short of notice in the interest of trying
to keep the process moving. We will endeavor to do better on that in the future. With
regard to the make-up of committee, everybody on the City Council has worked long and hard
on the issue and he thought, when looking at who should best serve on the committee, it
would be individuals who had an interest in the issue and who will be deciding the issue in its
ordinance form later on anyway. He was concerned about time element involved in bringing
up to speed a wide variety of people throughout the community. It’s difficult to find somebody
that doesn’t have some sort of a vested interest in this issue that would stack the biases on the
committee. He thought it would be best to have a makeup, a committee of the City Council.
Council Member McClemans is new to the City Council but has had an interest in liquor issues
in the past. Mayor Munsterman and Council Member Bartley have been actively involved in the
issue. All three of those individuals are going to have an opportunity with everybody to vote
on the final product on this and he thought it would be best to speed the process along if
people that were going to be having some say in the final also were involved in the details
upfront.
Munsterman added that these meetings are open to the public and the taped audio is available
on the website and they have just as much dialogue as anyone else on the ad hoc committee.
The Committee has had 20 to 30 people in the audience participating in the dialogue and there
aren’t any decisions made by the committee other than just to try to work through the
information and bring it to the Council for a decision. The dialogue has been there and the
access is there. He doesn’t know if there is any difference between the people sitting out there
and the people sitting up here, because we’re all talking and we’ve been able to facilitate some
really good discussion.
Council Member Reed said one question he has is when the Council originally had the motion
to create the ad hoc committee, he thought it would be more of a community committee.
When the Council has talked about ad hoc committees before, it’s been more of a community
committee that either the mayor or the city manager has appointed. He thinks next time if the
Council does go through this where it creates a subgroup of the Council to look at that, to
make it be clearer in the motion. He doesn’t have any problem with what was done, but he
didn’t think that’s what we were doing. He thought there would be citizens on the committee
also. For the next time the Council does something like this, he thinks it should be clear of the
make-up of the committee.
Munsterman agreed that this was a good point and something the Council needs to recommend
at that point.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
8
Bartley said he thinks it’s important to understand that this was a different ad hoc committee
than what the Council has appointed in the past. In the past, it’s been a Mayor’s ad hoc
committee which would then involve other people other than the Council. This one in
particular was the City Manager’s ad hoc committee to help him develop policy for the Council.
He does think these are two different types of ad hoc committees even though they say the
word ad hoc committee; they are two completely different separate functions.
Reed said in the City Charter when it talks about that the City Manager can also form an ad
hoc committee with citizens. He thinks if the council gave it a title such as a subcommittee or
standing committee would provide more clarity.
McClemans said what the Committee has worked through so far is strictly legislative. The
Committee is still trying to figure out where they’re at with these licenses. When the
Committee gets a better grasp on them, he’s not opposed to some input from other people.
He still has some concerns whether the City is going to issue two licenses or ten licenses and
whether it’s an existing establishment or new establishment. He thinks some guidelines from
the public would help and he thinks we need some guidelines.
A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to seek an Attorney General opinion
regarding questions on Senate Bill 126. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Project Insight Reports. Council Member Bartley gave the following two reports:
Project Insight: Moscow, Idaho - Population 22,000; 10,000 students. One old mall, Macy’s,
Office Depot and Walmart (not super Walmart), new shopping center across state line planned
next year (20 miles)
Economic Development: 1) They have an economic development council with an
administrator that handles all economic except not retail at this time, considering it for future;
2) They do have a plan which will be provided at a later date; and 3) Fair and affordable
housing commission meets every month which is appointed by the Mayor.
Code Enforcement: 1) No specific plan other than ordinances in place; 2) Complaint basis
only; and 3) New Ordinance passed recently (will provide a copy).
Development impact and other fees: 1) Developers pay for new subdivisions and
developments; 2) Also arterial roads; 3) Uses various fees, assessments and traditional
bonding for projects; and 4) Old sign ordinance being reviewed by Community Development
and Planning Board.
Financial: 1) Urban Renewal Agency applies for various grants and CDBG as available.
Town & Gown: 1) Campus substation for fire and police. No direct reimbursement from
university. 2) Fire department is Voltaire with 5 police staff.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
9
Library: No direct involvement with economic development
Event Center: 1) Kiwi Dome at Campus, Community Center in old high school which includes
senior center is managed under a contract with the non-city entity.
Unique partnerships with university: Mayor and President meet every month
Project Insight: Fort Collins, Colorado - Population 140,000; 25,000 students
Economic Development: 1) Regional and city EDC also a University/City combined effort; 2)
Very developed plan available on the internet @ fc.com/business; and
3) Currently no funding available, use only CDBG funding
Code Enforcement: 1) Have a detailed plan and a joint enforcement officer with the university;
2) Proactive; and 3) Currently enforcing no more than 3 unrelated in housing unit
Development impact and other fees: 1) All private funded by developers; 2) Street over sizing
when appropriate for the city; and 3) Have some impact fees listed on web site @ fc.com
Financial: 1) Retail incentive over half million square feet of development. Just did a lifestyle
power center for 4 million over 20 years bonding; and 2) 2 TIF districts commercial only, no
housing.
Town and Gown: Police backup only, Fire District, no financial contribution, negotiated transit
deal.
Liquor Store Evaluation: Council Member McClemans submitted the following written
report to the City Council. He said this report was in regards to the report the City Council
received in May related to the liquor store and its profits. The Brookings Liquor Store recently
moved to a new location. Prior to that there was discussion of privatizing, allowing leases
similar to the liquor licenses the City has and a different direction was chosen to go to the
Brookings Mall.
Background from his written report: “In 2001 the Liquor Store Manager asked the City Council to
tour the store at the west 6th street location. This tour was conducted to look at the plans for expansion
of the store in order to increase sales. After the tour, the Mayor and all six Council members agreed
that based on the location, expansion was not a reasonable venture. Further options were discussed,
presented and studied regarding the Liquor store operation. In 2005, the City Council (Munsterman,
Bozied, McClemans, Reed) was ready to issue 3 licenses as private individual leases. Due to a change
of council members this action was defeated by a 5-2 vote.”
McClemans said it is now three years later and the City owned Liquor store has now been in
operation one full year at its new location at the Brookings Mall. Upon review of the most
recent financial statement he is proposing that the option that was best in 2005 is still the best
option for the future.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
10
BLS Goal is to provide a yearly 8% net profit which is equal to the 10% override charged to the
lease operators in the city. The Store’s current net profit was 3.3%; the reality is that it is still
the best option to get out of the City run liquor store business. It should get in the position
where it is not in direct competition with private business. It will be more profitable to lease
liquor sales to one to three private individuals or businesses like we do for on and off sale
liquor/malt beverage/wine sales.
He reviewed the 6 year profit projection summary (Brookings Mall projections) given to the
City Council by former City Manager, Alan Lanning. He said the City Council incorrectly
believed that these numbers showed staying in this business was a good idea. He noted the
bottom line showing that there would be a $209,088 positive difference by leasing the sale of
off sale liquor/beer/wine to private individuals or business. These projections were put together
with increases, a $65,000 lease expense which he believes if $75,000. This includes misc. and
lotto profits of $21,000. Taking the projected sales, they were projecting a net profit of $1.5
million. If looking at 10% and leasing the liquor store in the same manner, it would show we
were $209,000 ahead to be out of the business. We would have generated $1.7 million.
Deduct the added lease and the profit on lotto and other margins, there’s almost a $400,000
difference.
This creates an additional $60,000 (for the years 2006-2011) to be added to the $209,088
making a total of $269,088 difference in being out of the business. The numbers on the
summary sheet are indicative of an 8% profit which is again our goal, which we are not meeting.
The following was from a handout prepared by McClemans:
A) We have only achieved a 3.3 % profit. GOAL is 8%.
•Our transfer is $370,000.00, with only $105,292.00 actually from the store.
•Comparing the 10% override numbers of 677,934.00, you can see an 83% difference in
profitability totaling $307, 934.00*.
10% override numbers are calculated as follows:
Current 2007 off sale beer/liquor/wine sales (4,326,822.00 x 10% = $438,486.00)
Product purchased at the local liquor store for sale (2,394,480.00 x 10% = $239,448.00)
Total = $677,934.00 (monthly allocations of override of sale of beer and liquor)
B) The following dollar amounts could be in the city treasury:
1) Cost of current inventory $576.104.00
2) Cash on hand $538,271.00
3) Profit difference $307,934.00*
Total $1,422,309.00
Please note that every year that the profit fails to reach the 8% goal, we are losing money on the
difference between the goal and the actual profit percentage received as transfers. For example, in
2007, the difference between 3.3% ($105,000.00) and the goal of 8% ($254,545.00).
The Liquor Store is still at 3.45% so it is still struggling to get to half way of the projected net profit of
10%.
FIVE OPTIONS FOR THE BROOKINGS LIQUOR STORE
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
11
1) Provide leases to 3 retail locations in the City of Brookings. This is the most profitable with the
least amount of expense and involvement by the City.
2) Leave the Liquor store in the present location. This option would maximize the mark up on
products, thereby maximizing the profit. There would also be no cost for remodeling to a new
location and this would require the least amount of risk.
3) Build a new store at a new location, which would result in reduced profits. The reduced profit is
due to costs associated with construction and operating costs.
4) Lease a store at a location owned by others for less expense than building a new store. The
proposed lease expenses are too high and will reduce overall profit due to this increased
operating expense. (This is the option the city chose)
5) Sell the Liquor store as City owned operation. (This makes no sense to because it generates
revenue for the City).”
He reviewed a 2007 financial statement, noting “less inventory of $576,104” and “cash on hand
at $538,271.” Those are both numbers and money that could have been in the city coffers at
the end of 2007 had the City allowed other people to lease the liquor store. As long as the city
owned store can not reach the 8% profit margin (which it has never done), we will continue to
be $250,000 to $300,000 behind every year we are operating the store.
He reviewed the first quarter 2008 financial statement citing the liquor store is averaging 3.45%.
There are several things involved in this liquor operating of liquor, malt/beer, and wine and
there are different percentages charged and also things like freight that can be charged to each
establishment.
The overall condition shows it would be more profitable for the city to have leased. It would
have been 83% more profitable last year had we been in a lease situation rather than in the
operation of the store.
He thinks at this time, the Council needs to be looking at the future. The Council has a new
legislative bill it hasn’t examined on the ad hoc committee that’s a beer and wine license. He’s
not completely sure whether it’s a separate license which will allow grocery stores that do over
50% of their business with food to allow them to also expand into wine. He’s not sure if that is
a separate license and if the Council has to discuss issuing them or if they automatically qualify.
They will take a portion of the wine business from the City liquor store. The reality is even
though the liquor store would like to increase their business, that’s fine. But when they
increase their business by taking business from our other outlets, we lose money. When they
don’t reach their 8% net profit, we’re better off to have Casey’s or one of the bars downtown
or HyVee or Walmart – we’re better off taking the 10% mark-up. We make more money on
every case of beer. He asked if the beer and wine license was a new separate license.
Weldon said the way the law is written, the city would need an ordinance to enact it and it
would be a license that the city would have to issue to HyVee, for example, if they wanted to
sell wine.
McClemans asked it is something the City could do. Yes. McClemans noted if the City does
issue this new license to HyVee, it will cut into the liquor store’s sales volume.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
12
McClemans said the reality of it is the 8% net is a very hard thing for them to accomplish. The
10% override on the wholesale of the bars or the beer bought at a convenience store – that
10% is kind of like death and taxes. It’s pretty much unbeatable. The City continues to make
the money and continues to collect the money weekly and it’s much cleaner and more
profitable for the city, plus you put a $1 million dollars in the bank.
He proposed that RFP’s be requested for the operation of 1-3 private source (individuals or
businesses) leases to be explored. If proposals are not indicative of a change being needed than
the operation of Brookings Liquor Store can remain business as usual (which is not very good
business).
Council Discussion:
Bartley asked when the City does the override now for the 10% to the operating agreements,
the City provides some services for that 10%. All the billing comes through the city. The City
pays the liquor wholesalers monthly or more frequently, but the City pays that bill within 30
days. That gives a little leeway to the bar owners, the operating agreements, to pay the City.
We figure it out and bill them. The City is basically providing a service to those facilities for the
10% override. Under McCleman’s scenario, the City would then be charging liquor off-sale
holders of operating agreements that same 10% and would we then be paying their bills as they
got their supplies?
McClemans said the City would request that in the request for proposals that the city would
not make those payment, but the operators and bar owners would pay it in the same manner
the city does now. They pay weekly. He asked if the city pay every two weeks or monthly?
He knows the bars pay every Wednesday. He’s not sure if the off-sale holders pay directly to
the city. The City would have to build that into the operation of a lease.
Bill Purrington, Liquor Store Manager, said that the Store bills the bars every Monday for the
merchandise they received the week before and that bill is do at the end of the week.
Bartley asked when the City pays the wholesalers.
Purrington said because of the volume of the invoices the city processes, the city pays the
wholesalers every week.
Bartley said the city is taking an override, but providing a service. If the City was to try and
not do that, it just becomes a tax. If the City doesn’t provide any service for the 10% override,
it’s a tax.
Purrington said he’s always considered the override a lease. That is what it costs them to lease
their license.
McClemans said he wasn’t sure what he meant about a lease. The products are delivered to
convenience stores and the bars, the bills are signed for and forwarded to liquor store and
eventually downtown (City Hall). The operator of a lease agreement can do the same thing.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
13
You are basically handling the money week to week. You are also cash flow positive, because
supposedly they are paying the City every week. There is a certain amount of “kite”, a floating
from one week to the next depending on when the bills are actually are paid. He thinks it’s
something that needs to be looked at. The difference in revenue is very considerable and the
City has another liquor option coming at us that will make it even a little more tough for the
Liquor Store to make 8%. He questioned if they’ve ever made 8% in the old store. With the
increased $75,000 rent and added another employee, going to the new location the liquor store
added another $125,000 to an overhead. Even though they do more business, doing more
business doesn’t necessarily mean you make more money if the overhead has gone up and
that’s what has basically happened here.
Bartley said there could be an argument that splitting it into three different operations would
not allow you to handle the volume of product selection that we can handle in a super store
like our liquor store is at this present time. Three smaller establishments might not be able to
afford that because now we’ve split the pie three different ways. It becomes a little bit more
difficult to believe that we can increase the market and not risk the chance that we would lose
some of the market because people would shop elsewhere because the selection might be
different. That is something that the City has to look at. We have a pretty good operation in
terms of selection that he doesn’t think there will be in three smaller stores and we may see a
decrease.
McClemans said he thinks most people can handle their inventory and invest whatever money
they need to turn it, whether it’s one store or two stores or three stores. But the City takes a
request for proposals and sees what people are willing to do. You make sure they are sound,
bank bonded so they run the place in a sensible manner. Right now, the city is in the position
where it has to ask for requests to take over the current lease. When the difference in an
operating year is $307,000, he thinks it’s worthwhile to take a look at it, because just as the
City doesn’t want to be in the on-sale liquor by the drink business, he doesn’t know that the
City needs to be override business other than through a lease.
Bartley asked if there’s an opportunity to get out of the override business all together?
McClemans said no and asked why would the City do that for $400,000, for $400,000, why
would the city do that? That’s why the City would lease it.
Bartley asked Purrington as he looks at these figures presented in this proposal if he could
provide an analysis at the Council’s next meeting? Purrington responded yes.
McClemans clarified that he is not asking for something tonight. Purrington brought his
proposals of what business they have done and this (his report) analyzes and sums up what it’s
really all about. He’d be happy to discuss the numbers and he looks forward to Purrington’s
report.
Munsterman said he didn’t know if the Council would want the ad hoc committee to take a
look at or just have it come back to the council. Especially as one looks at the piece of
legislation McClemans was referring to; that might have the dynamic that plays into this whole
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
14
thing as well. The numbers are compelling and it was the direction the Council was headed a
few years ago and that got changed. He said he appreciates McClemans bringing it back up for
the Council to take a look at it and see if the Council needs to reassess where we are at. He
thinks it’s healthy to do that no matter what.
Bezdichek said he knows when the Council looked at this; a comment about the override of
2007 of beer and wine sales, the Council has talked about having some of the different liquor
stores for convenience. Those individuals that live on the south side of Brookings may not
necessarily be driving to HyVee. It seems in theory that it does make sense if stopping at a
convenience store if there was also a liquor store/cigar shop. People probably would make
purchases and may not affect the Liquor Store. If an individual is heading to the west as far as
the old Liquor Store, obviously there were sales made there. It makes a little sense that if the
City’s in that business, do you consider the citizens in making it convenient with the price of gas
and driving time and distance. He thinks by convenience by having small other outlets of some
private businesses, it’s worth thinking about and discussing.
Munsterman asked this item be placed on a future work session agenda for the council.
Reed added when talking about convenience, when doing retail development and if we are
working on an area that we’re trying to get stores in and someone comes along and would like
to put in a liquor store or a gift shop with wine and beer with top shelf liquors – you can’t do
that. He thinks we could lose an opportunity there to help a business succeed. That’s why
when we talk about the idea that maybe grocery stores can sell wine, he can’t see the Council
stopping that because he doesn’t think we should limit a businesses ability to make more money
and provide better services to our citizens.
Brunner said on the selection end as to having a high quality selection, he thinks we’ll see a little
diversity. Some businesses will carry just top end wines or liquor. Some other businesses may
carry a broader range. He thinks selection wise, we may stay same but be spread out more as
far as where there is access in town.
McClemans commented as you do this, you reach a point where it is more profitable to take
the 10% rather than it is to run a store and he thinks that will hold true no matter what you do.
Munsterman said the Council will allow staff to check through the numbers and then get it on a
work session for another discussion and then move from there.
Economic Development Land Transfer Value. Council Member McClemans requested
this item be placed on the agenda as a policy discussion. He said he has a concern about
economic development land transfers. A number of years ago the City passed a Resolution 79-
04 which states that City will either check with local realtors or get an appraisal when the City
sells land to people who really don’t fit the true economic development. This was brought
about by the sale of a piece of property (1.6 acres) for $10,000 an acre and the gentleman
moved a building onto the premises, never hooked up any water or sewer, and immediately
sold it the building to another person who in turn sold it to another person and there was no
economic development for the city of Brookings and the citizens took a beating. The City
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
15
didn’t get its money back out of the street or the land. This resolution was brought forward
with the guidelines of a $1 per square foot or $43,560 per acre. When installing water and
sewer, the costs are considerably different. The City has just sold two pieces of property and
he feels the Council needs to understand what it has done. The City has sold two pieces of
property at 25 cents per sq ft rather than a $1. A lot of money was left on the table. He feels
both these properties should have been made available to the private sector. These don’t seem
to have any great economic development value. He was involved in visiting with one of the
individuals who went out to look at some property with the city and had no idea he would end
up with the $10,000 per square foot that as been the standard out there forever. When the
City put streets, curb and gutter, and water and sewer it ends up well over $150 on the
frontage of each of the City’s properties. One of the properties the City sold was about $670
street frontage which works out to be $100,000 plus the cost of land and the land was quite
minor because the land was purchased 20 years ago. The City had over $106,000 into this
particular lot and sold it for $30,000 and the City has to go up the road pay $18,000 per acre
and pay the same kind of street costs and make it available for the next person. Economic
development is one thing. Private parties – that land should be made available to anyone in the
community. It’s surplus. The other piece of property sold had about 1,265 feet of streets and
the City had well over $200,000 in this piece of property which the City sold for $77,000.
Again, the City is selling to people and the economic development does not appear to be there.
Up the street, the City is paying $18,000 per acre and comparable cost of streets of $150.
There’s a reason this resolution was passed in 2004. Why would the City unload property at a
sub-value? He visited with Joyce Dragseth, County Director of Equalization, and found that
these properties would be well be taxed over what they were sold for. He feels the City needs
to review and understand what it’s doing when taking some of these smaller pieces of property
– a smaller parcel was not set up for a large company which is what economic development is.
Because of the people in the City of Brookings who own commercial property, they’re not
willing to sell. It’s very hard to find two to four acres to build a warehouse. Those properties
are very hard to come by. They are zoned improperly. The people who own them, do not
want to sell them. At a $1 per square foot, you’ll find out we generally break even. That’s not
always the standard corner lots. There’s no reason for the city to take a loss when there’s no
economic development.
Al Heuton, Brookings Economic Development Corporation Executive Director, provided a
quick review of the process. Heuton said how is works is essentially the city has property for
sale and the BEDC maintains a database of both public and private properties so when people
come to look, whether it’s retail, commercial, industrial, or other, they talk to them about
every piece of property that is available in the community. If they have an interest in city
property, the BEDC has put in place a standard operating system that they follow that includes
that business providing information on their project, on the economic impact in terms of capital
investment, jobs, benefits, property taxes. All that information is put into a report that they
bring to the council and discuss the project in executive session because it is a contractual
matter. The Council makes a decision based on that input and that’s the price they sell it for.
Heuton noted related to price and value, land that isn’t “shovel ready” that doesn’t have
utilities, he doesn’t think they could sell for a $1.00/square foot in Brookings. He doesn’t think
it will happen.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
16
The basic process is that a business comes to the BEDC with a request and the BEDC
represents that request to the City. The BEDC puts together what they feel will be the
economic impact on that project and that’s what the city council bases their decision on.
McClemans asked for clarification on the land type. Heuton said not shovel-ready, meaning that
it is graded and ready to build on as all sewer, water, streets are in place.
McClemans said most sites are not ready to go. He thinks a $1.00 per square foot is at best, a
very good price for anyone to buy. When you have water, sewer, curb and gutter, and city
street in front of the property, we can sell that all day long. He doesn’t understand where
such a price is available, $15,000 an acre or $10,000 an acre with water, sewer, curb and gutter
zoned commercial or industrial – that’s a pretty good buy. At a $1.00 per square foot, if you
put it on the market he is confident it can be sold at that price.
Heuton commented that he has a different opinion based on what other communities are doing
in the area. It is the Council’s purgative if they want to list their property at a $1.00 per square
foot and not have any flexibility in that price, that’s what the BEDC will follow. He pointed out
that they have talked to other communities in this part of South Dakota and their price for
shovel-ready land (close to interstates) ranges from 23 to 57 cents a square foot. If it’s not
shovel ready, some are as low as 7 cents per sq. ft. and all of those prices are negotiable. They
have run into this in the past with there’s been other communities that have competed for
business expansions or relocations that have offered free land and utilities to the door, and we
can’t compete with that at a $1.00 per square foot.
McClemans said he thinks that they are talking about two different “apples.” One is a private
purchase for someone to use for their private increase in financial wealth and not someone
who is bringing a 100 jobs to a community along the interstate. He asked Heuton if he was
aware of Resolution 79-04. He asked if anyone was aware this was resolution or a guideline
for the city to use?
Heuton said both he and the Council had been aware of the Resolution and it’s a guideline and
it’s always been represented to him as a negotiable figure.
Reed asked Heuton when he puts together the scorecard on each one as the Council looks at
each property is there ever a check that he goes back and see how they’ve done in what the
Council was told they would do.
Heuton said there isn’t. When businesses come to the BEDC, he takes what they say at face
value. If the city wants that to be monitored, that is certainly something that can be done. He
has done this in the past doing grant administration where he goes back to verify capital
investment and job creation, which is generally the measure. He has yet to see a state to go
back on company that didn’t do exactly what they said they were going to do and ask for
money back.
Reed said he was thinking more for lessons learned and knowing what we do have to watch.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
17
Heuton said they are in the process of working on their economic development strategy for
the community and he thinks McClemans is correct; there are land sales that take place that
would not be the highest priority. As he gets that strategy completed and he starts looking at
the types of industries we want to develop in the community, the Council would certainly have
the purgative to restrict land sales to only those types of industries. That is something they
can look at as they develop the strategy including if there are certain types of business the City
wants to eliminate being able to buy land in city industrial parks or at a reduced price.
Munsterman asked McClemans if he was recommending any changes other than to remind the
Council.
McClemans said he is hoping that everyone understands on these two properties, the City lost
around $250,000 and we’re going up the hill two miles away paying $18,000 an acre and putting
the same dollar per running foot for water, sewer, curb and gutter and we’re not even getting
our money back on the sale of these. These are not even economic development individuals in
sense of creating jobs. These are people who probably looked for other places to build and
it’s hard to find a place. These are very reduced below tax assessed value and corner lots.
Corner lots you don’t make any money on anyway and to sell them at these lesser prices --
$15,000 per acre with curb and gutter in zoned commercial or industrial is a very good price
for somebody. And if there’s some more available, to let him know.
Heuton said the calculations they look at include the land value the city paid for the property
and what the city investment was in utilities and street on one side. He noted that he might be
wrong, but wasn’t sure if the city charges any corner lot both sides. If you look at that, the
City didn’t lose money, but didn’t make a lot.
McClemans said the City doesn’t make anything. The property was purchased at $2,000 per
acre. The $150 is a frontage fee; it’s not both sides. It is frontage of the lots. Just half the
street is $150. In this particular case, it was 200’ x 477’; it’s 677 feet at $150 totally over
$100,000. This property was bought 19 years ago for $2,400 per acre. You’re paying $18,000
per acre because you have to replace what you sell. There’s a cost of putting the streets in.
This was a good policy and is something that needs to be reviewed. He is quite sure these
numbers are very accurate.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: An executive session was added to the meeting regarding pricing strategy.
A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to approve the consent agenda, which
included:
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action to approve the May 27, 2008 minutes.
C. Action to approve the Government Access Channel Policy.
Policy for Production and Programming
of Government Cable Channel 9
City of Brooking, SD
Background
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
18
Section 611 of the Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to require cable
operators to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental use. The City of
Brookings has secured a Government Access channel for the purpose of providing high-quality
government access programming in an ongoing effort to inform and educate the citizenry.
1. Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to specify procedures necessary to ensure compliance with
all applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations pertaining to the Government
Access Channel.
2. Definitions:
For the purposes of this policy, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth
below:
Endorsement. The term “endorsement” shall mean the act of giving approval of or
support of any issue, candidate, specific person, company, and specific brand
name product or service provider for consumer use.
Government Access Channel. The term “government access channel” shall mean
a channel intended for use by local governmental bodies for informing the
public about what is happening in local government.
Government Access Programming. The term “government access programming”
shall mean any live cablecast, tape-delayed cablecast, pre-produced,
interactive information, or outside-originated programming designed to
provide the Brookings television viewing area with timely, accurate, and
complete government information.
3. Eligible Programming and Program Content
3.1 Modes of Cablecast:
3.1.1 Live Cablecast. Live coverage, principally consisting of City Council, live call-in
shows, and other selected public meetings and events of general community
interest.
3.1.2 Tape-delayed Cablecast: Public meetings and/or events, which are videotaped
in advance for cablecast at a later period, shall be permitted. These videotaped
programs shall adhere to the formatting guidelines in Section 3.2.
3.1.3 Pre-Produced Programming: Programs produced by the City of Brookings
through a contracted third party. These programs include (but are not limited
to) programs for City departments, issues related to City government, or with
or about groups/committees/boards etc. that are affiliated with City
government or which use public dollars. These programs could be either live
or tape-delayed cablecasts.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
19
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.
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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
20
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 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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
21
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.
D. Action to approve the City Council’s Goals.
Capital Project Prioritization for 2008
1. Issue/Project - Airport dual-track analysis
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
22
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 (by Aug 08)
2) Work with FAA consultants to analyze all data compiled for each of the two options of the
dual track for a consolidated report (Aug 08)
3) Hold public hearings on consolidated report (Sept 08)
4) Make decision on preferred option (Oct 08)
5) Begin master plan study on selected option (Jan 09)
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.
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 (Aug 08)
2) Mayor works with DOT plan over the interim on study committee (Aug 08)
3) Work with legislators to redraft transportation bill for introduction during 2009 legislative
session (Aug 08)
4) Maintain dialogue with DM&E and CP in preparation for new Community Partnership
agreement pending sale (Aug 08)
5) Continue building reserve for crossing improvements for crossing arms beginning with 22nd
Avenue (annual budget process)
6) Work with CP for joint funding of crossing safety improvements (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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
23
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.
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 (by Jan 09)
2) Prepare debt financing package for Phase II - IV backed by repayment from TID #1
development (by Dec 08)
3) Phase II is bid and constructed (summer 09)
4) Phase III is bid and constructed (summer 10)
5) Phase IV is bid and constructed (summer 11)
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.
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 (by December 2008)
2) Public hearing/presentation on study results (by January 2009)
3) Submit project scope for inclusion to STIP (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
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
24
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.
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 (June
08)
2) Have utility plans approved by City and BMU (June 08)
3) Initiate cost recovery program for utility financing (if necessary) (June 08)
4) Approve development agreement (Aug 08)
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.
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 (June 08)
2) Council holds public meetings/hearings on major findings/results of study (July-Aug 08)
3) Council/staff identify and prioritize construction projects (Sept 08)
4) Staff analyzes financing options for projects (Sept 08)
5) Specific projects placed in 2009 budget and in CIP (Sept 08)
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
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
25
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.
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
(ongoing)
2) Examine options for City Hall remodeling and expansion (Aug 08)
3) Examine options for replacing City Hall with a new building (Aug 08)
4) Examine options for combines city/county law enforcement facility (ongoing and 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.
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 (June 08)
2) Hold public meeting on results of study (Oct 08)
3) Explore options for additional private investment into expansion project (Oct 08-Feb 09)
4) Develop process for selecting hotelier partner (Oct 08-Feb 09)
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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
26
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.
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
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
27
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.
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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
28
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.
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.
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:
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
29
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
• 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.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
30
Mayor’s Annual State of the City Message
“Our Vision: Quality of Life by providing opportunities for people to live a better life through
city services, job opportunities, housing, retail options, and amenities.
We have five vision components at this time:
1. Smart & Balanced Growth – attaining a sustainable, moderate population growth rate,
informed decision-making and creating additional economic diversity.
2. Economic Prosperity – capturing existing industry growth, building the next generation
economy, new business formation and creating a competitive business environment.
3. Quality Amenity Base – building quality of life features that will entice new residents to
the community and creating social environments attractive to new population targets.
4. Focus on the Future – creating a widely accepted community vision, partnerships and
community awareness.
5. Quality Physical Environment –preserving community character, ensuring high
quality/planned future developments and creating a variety of residential, commercial
and industrial developments.
Vision Components:
• A number of goals and initiatives have been identified within these five vision components.
• There are certainly numerous priorities to implement to enable us to capture existing
opportunities and to position the community/area to be economically stable and growing in
the future.
• All of the council’s efforts are coordinated with other economic development activities
and partners in the area.
The Mayor reviewed all the Council’s goals in the Capital Project Prioritization for 2008. Note
that these are listed in the consent agenda under Item D in their entirety.
Closing Comments… We have a number of growing pains within our community. One can’t
help but get excited when you take a tour around the community to see what is all going on. It
didn’t happen by accident. It took vision, hard work and determination to bring us to this
point. It will continue to take these very same components to carry us through to our future.
Brookings is known for its leadership role in innovation and creativity across the state. We
must continue to forge ahead with new ideas, and sensible decisions that will bring higher
quality to those living in our region. As we grow, please keep in mind your city leadership:
from the city council, to the volunteers who serve on our city boards and commissions and our
city staff. This leadership team is dedicated to serve out the mission of the city. A mission
“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.”
Our mission (and let me emphasize this is our collective community mission) is committed to a
common cause, a common goal, and a common purpose. Nothing worthwhile is ever
accomplished without challenges and nothing worthwhile is ever accomplished without the
combination of vision with courage.
Working together, we are making a ‘significant’ impact. Let’s keep moving ahead! Thank you.”
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
31
1st Reading - Ordinance No. 28-08. First reading was held on 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
Public Hearing – Malt Renewals. A public hearing was held on Annual Malt Beverage
Renewals: On-Off Sale Malt 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.;
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.;
Swiftel Center, 824 32nd Ave.; Mad Jacks LTD., 1300 Main Ave. So.; PNP Pub, 318 2nd St. So.;
Schoon’s PNP Pub South, 1203 Main Ave. So.; Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill, 307 Main Ave.;
Package Beer (off-sale): 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. Public hearing – no testimony. A motion was made by
Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to approve. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 46-08 – Street Maintenance Project. A motion was made by Reed,
seconded by Whaley, to approve Resolution No. 46-08, awarding bids for 2008-08STI, Street
Maintenance Project. All present voted yes; motion carried.
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.
Action to appoint the Deputy Mayor. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by
Whaley, to appoint Tim Reed as the Deputy Mayor. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
32
Revised Preliminary Plat. Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to approve a
revised preliminary plat of portions of BlairHill and BlairHill Second Addition. All present voted
yes; motion carried.
Tax Incremental District Number (3), City of Brookings.
A. TID #3 – Resolution No. 45-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to
approve Resolution No. 45-08, a Resolution Declaring Boundaries, and Recommending
Creation of Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City Of Brookings.
Weldon said this resolution will establish the boundaries of the City’s third tax increment district in the
Valley View addition. Item B is the description of the activity and Item C is the development agreement
The Valley View Addition has gone through platting process last year. This TIF is a housing district. The
other two were for commercial or industrial. What is proposed in this case is a pay-as-you go TIF. It is
the type of a plan that is the least risk financially to the city and does not require us to issue any tax
increment bonds or any debt at all. The developer will be responsible for financing the costs for the
infrastructure and will be reimbursed over time. Similar to other districts, there is a 5 year provision
which means all the improvements must be completed in that timeline. The amount can not exceed
the amount of approved infrastructure costs outlined in the project plan. As a housing district, Valley
View will provide for additional single family and some multi family housing opportunities for the
community. This project is intended as a policy to address some of the issues relative to housing as well
as the city’s housing plan to provide affordable housing units for a sector of the community. House
prices will be limited to $160,000. That number was reached as a determination by using the same
standards as South Dakota Housing Agency uses for their loan programs. As part of the financing
package, the developer is seeking a loan from SDHA for a loan that will dovetail the increment.
Weldon noted that Toby Morris, financial advisor with Northland Securities, has been advising the city
on this project as well as assisting the developer. Morris and Todd Meierhenry have been retained by
the developers to assist with all the technical aspects.
Morris pointed out that the way this project is structured is that the developer is the borrower and there
is minimal risk to the city. The way it was put together, because the debt will be paid off of projected
housing, what if the houses never get built – will the lender get their money back? What happens in
this structure is the City is nothing more than a pass-through conduit. As the increment comes in from
the county to the city, the city makes payments on to SD Housing on behalf of the developer. Should
there ever be a shortfall, it is the developer’s responsibility. The City’s job is to pass on increment until
debt is retired. One of the benefits when working with SD Housing is it’s a taxable loan at tax exempt
rates. The rate will be between 3.7% to 3.9%. The lower interest rate, the faster it’s paid off and
back on tax roles. Two of the questions that always come up when dealing with tax increment
financing is how will this impact school and is it going to raise my taxes? The school is held harmless on
a tax increment financing under the general fund side, whether it’s done for economic development or
industrial. They will get their money either way. As economic development or industrial, the state will
subsidize that amount. Because it’s done in this case as housing, the question will rise -- does it raise
my taxes? The answer is yes. Morris distributed a handout that illustrates that impact. The way it is
calculated is to look at the increment. Based on the developer’s projections, he used seven houses as
an example which would generate $1,050,000 million in total valuation increase. How will that impact
taxes? The worksheet breaks it down by a multiplier that was provided by the state. How is a home
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
33
owner going to be effected? There will be two sides to this – one in general fund and one in special
education levy. The property tax impact on the general fund side for a $1,050,000 in valuation
increment on an AG valued property, it would have an increase of 31 cents on a taxable value of
$150,000. An owner occupied would increase 49 cents on a $150,000 taxable value. On the special
education levy, where they levy a $1.40 per $1000, that then becomes another impact. The AG value
to owner occupied would be 22 cents. Bottom line for a house of a taxable value of $150,000 would
be 72 cents. Over time as the total valuation increases and increment increases the tax impact will
probably decrease because the Brookings School District has a large valuation and it grows at great
rate. As that valuation goes up, the tax impact should go down. On an owner occupied house the
impact would be less than $1.00. Knowing it would have a tax impact on constituents, we were very
careful to make sure not just anyone could buy these homes. All 35 lots are restricted to $160,000.
That benchmark is set by SD Housing which could increase due to inflation. If the developers sell a
house for $200,000, that would violate the TIF. The point of the TIF is to offset costs to provide for
affordable housing.
Weldon said the whole purpose of the TIF is to help reduce the cost of the total project and the
increment is the future property taxes these residents will be paying. Instead of going to the
city/county/school, it will be going to help write down the cost of their property by paying the public
improvement of their project. That is the purpose of doing it and that is where the benefit comes in.
Morris noted that there are a few of these housing TIFs in the state right now and they are becoming
more popular for affordable housing because effectively used, they are minimal risk to the city.
McClemans asked if the City has a policy on TIFs because there will probably be more requests.
Weldon responded that the City of Brookings doesn’t have a written policy regarding the use of tax
increment financing. This is only the third district the City has been asked to certify and the first one for
housing. The City has been learning as we go. He indicated some time ago that the City does need
to develop a policy that gives us a better direction and guidance about this as a tool and defining the
terms and conditions under which the City wants to make it available. He noted that on the June 24th
work session the Council will hear about a preliminary feasibility for a similar request for affordable
housing.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
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:
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
34
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.
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 June 10, 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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
35
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.
B. TID #3 Project Plan. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to approve
the PROJECT PLAN for Tax Incremental District Number Three (3), City of Brookings.
All present voted yes; motion carried. (A copy of the complete plan is available at the City
Clerk’s Office).
C. TID #3 Development Agreement. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by
Brunner, to approve the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT for Tax Incremental District Number
Three (3), City of Brookings. All present voted yes; motion carried.
DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made on June 10, 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; (MAP INSERTED HERE and Not Included in Minutes)
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
36
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 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
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
37
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 demonstrated 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 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.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
38
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.
Discussion of financing plan for Innovation Campus.
Weldon said one of the City’s major goals for this and succeeding years is the financing and
installation of infrastructure for the SDSU Innovation Campus. 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. 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. He provided the Council with a Project Description Sheet that described
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.
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
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
39
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.
He has asked the City’s 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, he strongly recommended the City insist on the dedication of necessary
rights-of-way and easements for this infrastructure. We simply should not finance, own, and
subsequently be responsible for maintaining infrastructure in property over which do not have
ownership or controlling interest.
He noted that the purpose of his report was informational only and to ask if staff should
continue to proceed with making the necessary financing arrangements described above.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
40
There was consensus from the Council to proceed.
Bartley noted that the speculative development may request funds from the TIF. Would that
change the picture?
Weldon noted the tax increment map; one of the things the City could do with the increment
this project would generate would be to make some necessary improvements that would
service that development plus the entire area. One would be to finish putting in 25th Avenue
north of Lowe’s up to 10th Street. That would qualify for tax increment and it’s part of the
City’s identified master plans for the street system and he thinks it would be important to finish
that out. He recommended connecting 25th Avenue to 10th Street should be the first priority
on tax increment cash. He noted that State law does allow certain types of private
improvements to be done with tax increment as well. The party that would generate the
increment will probably request use of that increment to go back to private improvements on
the project at grade or below, typically parking lots and utilities. That will be a policy discussion
for the Council to have at the appropriate time of whether to allow tax increment to be used
for private projects to as offset to development costs.
Munsterman said the main point is the City Council is in the driver’s seat on making those
decisions.
Teresa McKnight, Executive Director of the Innovation Campus, provided the Council with a
handout. She noted the Growth Partnership has awarded the bid for Phase I infrastructure.
The GP has the opportunity to work with a landscape architecture planning class and they
designed the infrastructure and front entrance. The goal of the entrance into the innovation
campus off of 22nd Avenue was to present an environment or a feeling that they’ve entered
someplace unique or special. She reviewed the details of their plans and that handout is
available in the City Clerk’s Office. McKnight said the design of the entry rotunda area with
so much glass is that it’s a gathering place for people and to have an environment where people
can talk, collaborate and share ideas. This is where the synergy happens in the building. It is
also a connection of the second phase of this building. The overall building design will be an
Iconic-like that will set the standard for the types of buildings that will be constructed at the
innovation campus. She noted that employee parking be designed at the rear of the building
and to leave the front for guests and visitors. The focus needs to be on the building and the
activities happening within the building. The impression of the campus is to create a sense of
environment. The design keeps the visitor in suspense – there’s no signage along 22nd Avenue
other than street signs. There’s no identity in the double drive until the visitor enters the two-
tiered roundabout and that’s where the SDSU Innovation Campus Sign will be located. The
intent of the design is to capture the visitor and give them a sense of arrival that they are now
at the innovation campus. The goal is to attract businesses into this research park and the
impressions and captures are provided in the landscaping double drive, the roundabout, the
signage and finally the Iconic building. She showed the master plan map, noting there is no
roadway to seed technology building now. She said that is why it is critical to get through tax
incremental funding which will give the ability to finish future phased infrastructure to create
other opportunities and to attract other tenants, businesses, and developers.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
41
She said the roadway to the seed technology building will be critical because they will be ready
to go in 2009. Weldon asked if the seed technology facility was a done deal with all documents
signed? McKnight said it is a done deal, but there is a funding shortage for the conceptual
design of the building. They may reduce the size of the structure due to available funding.
Weldon asked if it would be multi-tenant. She said it will be a seed commodity with seed tech
researchers along with some of the commodities.
Weldon asked the Council wanted they want him and Morris to proceed in putting together a
financing plan for the project. Yes.
ADDITION - Executive Session. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by
McClemans, to enter executive session at 7:34 p.m. for purposes of marketing and pricing
strategies with the Council, Manager, Attorney, Clerk and Steve Meyer, Brookings Municipal
Utilities, present. All present voted yes; motion carried. A motion was made by Whaley,
seconded by Reed, to leave executive session at 7:56 p.m. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted
yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
42
Brookings City Council
June 17, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2008 at 4:00 p.m., at
City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members
Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed, Mike McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek. Council
Member Julie Whaley was absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman,
and Deputy City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present.
Brookings Storm Water Drainage Master Plan. City Engineer Jackie Lanning opened
with the following: “I’d like to thank the Mayor and City Council for holding this special work session
on our drainage Master Plan. First, I’d like to introduce Troy Thompson, who is president of Ecological
Resources Consultants (ERC) of Evergreen Colorado and is here with us today to go through the results
of the master plan. I’ll start off with some history on what we have accomplished with drainage
improvements up to this point, and then Troy will present the master plan.
During the summers of 2004 and 2005, Brookings had experienced some heavy rainfalls, and City
Manager Alan Lanning and I had looked at several areas of Brookings that seemed prone to flooding.
Alan had worked on drainage projects with ERC in the past, and we brought Troy to Brookings in June
of 2005. One of the first things Troy noticed was that Brookings did not have a requirement for
detention. Detention was a new concept for many towns in South Dakota, although it was a common
method of managing storm water. Our first phase of work was to develop a Storm Water Technical
Criteria Manual, which ERC worked on during the winter of 2005. We held contractor and consultant
meetings in the spring of 2006, and passed new ordinances implementing the manual in July of 2006.
Also that year, we heard that Brookings County had a contract for aerial photography. We partnered
with the County, and had had survey points set throughout the City and the 3-mile area so we could
have 2’ contours flown for us. This was a real benefit because the County paid for the flying and the
aerial photography, and the City paid for the contour mapping. Both the City and County share the
items we purchased since they were all paid for with taxpayer funds. By the winter of 2006, we
received the contour maps for our first study area, which was essentially from the railroad tracks to the
south city limits. In 2006, we also designed our first detention pond system, which joined Timberline
development and the Indian Hills development. In late 2006, the City Council raised the drainage fee
for 2007 to help pay for drainage improvements.
In 2007, we proceeded to build the Timberline and Indian Hills detention ponds, which benefited all of
the properties along this southwest basin of Brookings. We also had the contour maps completed for
the rest of the City Limits and 3-mile area so these could be encompassed into the master plan for the
entire city. Troy’s staff visited Brookings during the summer of 2007 to take pictures and notes on
areas all over Brookings and set up the SWMM model.
In the summer of 2007, the City Council discussed having the city-wide master drainage plan completed
as one of their goals, and the draft has completed for this work session. Troy has a presentation that
goes through the master planning process.”
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
43
Troy Thompson, Ecological Resource Consultants (ERC), thanked the Council for having them
here and commented it has certainly been an interesting adventure to look at all the different
drainage areas throughout town.
The process started two years ago when the City developed a Drainage Criteria Manual. One
of the major concepts of the Drainage Criteria Manual was to look at retention or detention.
With any development or changes in land uses, it is important ensure that as new development
occurs, existing drainage problems are not becoming worse. The next phase consisted of work
on the Master Drainage Plan. The concept with the Master Drainage Plan is to assess the city
on more of a macroscopic/large scale level and look at existing and anticipated future drainage
flows. Look at the amount of water at different areas and generate the frame work for tackling
existing problems.
The Master Drainage Plan assesses the current and anticipated future drainage conditions
within the City. The plan looks at drainage from a macroscopic perspective including major
flow paths and crossings. The plan quantifies existing and future peak flow rates at key
locations throughout the city during what the city has defined as a minor storm, which is
something that would happen once every 5-years, and a major storm, which is something that
would happen once every 100-years. It is intended to be a tool that aids the city in planning,
review of potential development and capital improvements, and provides budgetary level
estimates of costs to resolve anticipated major drainage issues. It is not a city-wide, looking at
every pipe, every sort of neighborhood level system.
Thompson emphasized the Master Drainage Plan is no way intended to supersede or get rid of
the Drainage Criteria Manual that the city has implemented, but rather compliment the
drainage criteria guidelines established by the city. It provides peak flow rates at key locations
throughout the city needed to assess future development and improvements. Detailed drainage
planning will still be required with each development. Future designs should be compatible with
the components of the Master Drainage Plan.
If it is chosen to implement this plan, a more detailed evaluation will have to be done, as this
plan does not go to the full design level; optimizing sizes of elements, setting elevations, figuring
out conflicts with utilities, etc. Currently, there is a problem with someone setting up
improvements or developments when there already are areas that drain onto that site. It
would be very hard for developers to estimate what kind of flows might be coming to their site
from off-site areas. This report will allow people to assess the types of impacts they have from
upstream areas.
The model ERC has created is called EPA SWMM (Storm Water Management Model). SWMM
is a rainfall-runoff simulation model used to model single event simulation of runoff quantity.
SWMM generates runoff calculations from sub-catchment areas and routes them through a
system of pipes, channels and storage facilities. SWMM records runoff quantity from sub-
catchments and calculates flow depths and rates at each element of the model. SWMM
provides ‘routed’ hydrographs through the drainage system. The model includes all the major
crossings / all basin areas.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
44
SWMM has several modeling requirements; 1) the rainfall events being looked at as per the
city’s criteria for the 5-year minor storm and the 100-year major storm, 2) Soil properties,
impact, and filtration capabilities, 3) Sub-Basin (land) parameters - slope, as the steeper the
more quickly and more runoff you get – percent impervious, the path for rainfall to infiltrate
into the ground – land use, park/undeveloped grass land allows water to infiltrate into the
ground versus a paved parking lot or a roof where the rainfall automatically tries to runoff
those surfaces in a single-family residential or commercial area – and depression storage, where
there is storage of runoff before the water flows out of the network, and 4) Drainage Network
- areas or sub-basins that are connected with channels, and in some instances storage elements
where water is slowed down or detained.
The SWMM Model was generated for both the minor 5-year event, and the major 100-year
event. A 5-year event is defined as 3.4 inches of rainfall within a 24-hour period. A 100-year
event is defined as 5.75 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period.
The study area included all land within the city boundaries. It was broken into 35 areas based
on their major basins, including all outfalls from city property. Major basins were further
subdivided into minor basins; e.g. basin 20 was broken into areas 3, 4, 5, and 6. These 4 areas
drain to the West, combining to a single outfall for basin 20. In addition to numerically
numbered basins, there area a few in the southeast corner of the city that start with letter ‘S’;
these are contained basins. Rainfall that falls on a basin that starts with ‘S’ is going to flow to a
low spot within that basin. They will not outfall fall from the city based upon current
topography. All other numeric sub-basins will drain and eventually leave the city.
Four Models were created to evaluate the drainage conditions for the city: 1) existing
conditions based upon existing land use conditions, 2) planned future conditions, 3) future
conditions with the 100-year recommended improvements to show that the improvements
they are listing in the report would indeed be able to convey water out without flooding, and 4)
a sensitivity analysis of the drainage system to look at the importance of maintenance of some
of the existing facilities on the overall behavior of the drainage system.
Existing Conditions Model. Land uses and developed areas within the city are continually
changing as a result of new construction and zoning changes. This model takes a snapshot of
the city to be used as the base; existing conditions based upon the Vision 2020 Land Use
Manual. The snapshot included the following completed and anticipated improvements:
detention ponds in Timberline Addition, detention ponds in Indian Hills Addition, future 15th
Street and Christine Avenue South extension and the future 15th Street South and 7th Avenue
South extension.
Existing Land Use Model. In working on this model, land use was taken into consideration; how
much land is single family, how much is commercial, how much is park/undeveloped, etc. Soil
types and how the areas interact was also evaluated. These land use parameters were taken
from the Vision 2020 Plan.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
45
Future Conditions Model. The Vision 2020 Plan was used as the basis for this model. T model
looks at the city 12 years from now. The 2008 zoning map was used for areas that are
currently undeveloped and evaluate what the intended zoning is for assumed future use.
Future Conditions with Recommended Improvements Model. This model views the drainage
situation in the year 2020 and assesses what types of drainage improvements are needed to be
able to convey the major 100-year storm event. Improvements were recommended for areas
that showed the possibility of flooding.
Sensitivity Analysis of Maintenance Model. Needing to consider the ongoing operations and
maintenance of such facilities is a very important piece to whatever the city plans to do with
future drainage improvements. This model looked at the ability for a grassed channel to convey
water. They compared what a cleaned out/maintained grass channel would do and how much
water could be conveyed, versus a situation where you have grass channels that are over
vegetated.
Specific Study Areas
In addition to looking at the city as a whole, there were some specific study areas identified by
the city as areas with existing drainage concerns that would require more detailed analysis.
They analyzed these 12 areas for the 5-year and 100-year storms.
ERC developed a model that looks at these areas in great detail. Looking at a drainage system
on a point-by-point location is not the best way to approach drainage problems. There are so
many places through the drainage system where you effectively have bottlenecks; water might
be flowing from one spot, creating a flooding location. The approach of trying to fix site
specific problems will most likely move that problem downstream. Therefore, not alleviating
any problem; just shifting the location of the problem.
This model does have some limitations. Master Drainage Planning looks at the city
macroscopically. This study does not go down to looking at every size of every pipe that is in
the city, and it doesn’t look at where flows are going into different roads, but rather looks at
major drainages and major crossings. The topographic mapping the city had obtained was very
helpful in the study; it saved them a lot of time that would have been spent on surveying. It
does have some limitations, basing all of the analysis on 2-foot contour intervals, but generally
works very well. There are a couple places with off-site drainage that runs into the city
property, particularly from the North, where there are areas which the future land use is not
necessarily known and creates a bit of uncertainty. Six Mile Creek does not have a detailed
FEMA-type analysis done to evaluate its flooding. There could be areas they’ve gone through
and done their evaluation, determined size of culverts, etc., to safely pass the flow from the city
downstream, but that has not evaluated what potential flooding Six Mile Creek could do.
When there is flooding in a very isolated area, the peak floods wouldn’t coincide with peak
floods in a river, as it takes longer for rivers to reach their peak stages, so there is a little bit of
a benefit in that. The study they are performing is different than backwater or flooding from
Six Mile Creek. There could be some combined effects from Six Mile Creek that are not
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
46
considered in this study. This study is looking in terms of major crossings, not neighborhood
level analyses.
A Master Plan will give guidelines or big flow parameters, and will allow assessment of major
road crossings, etc. As development occurs, or there is a change in land use at a certain area,
there would need to be an additional drainage report; similar to what is done now with all of
the developments having drainage reports as part of their submittals. This is what is called
neighborhood drainage level; installation of new pipes large enough to carry the flows. This
plan is not in any way intended to take the place of the types of drainage plans that the city is
currently obtaining from development projects.
Model Results - Area General Parameters
This following graph shows a summary of things that force the results to do what they are
doing. There are 28 different major drainage areas and the self-contained basins S56, S57, S68,
S60, S61, and S138.
Total
Area Percent Imperviousness Curve Number Area
(acres) Existing (%) Future (%) Existing Future
1 954.2 31.4 45.6 80.7 83.2
2 1446.7 25.2 38.2 78.3 80.6
3 440.2 45.2 47.1 78.9 79.2
4 126.2 62.9 63.8 87.1 87.3
5 297.4 50.7 51.8 85.1 85.3
6 217.3 53.9 53.9 86.1 86.1
7 31.7 11.4 48.4 76.3 84.9
8 17.8 12.1 12.1 76.5 76.5
9 41.9 20.9 44.7 78.5 84.0
10 10.7 2.0 54.7 74.0 84.9
11 9.8 2.0 49.0 74.0 85.0
12 17.3 90.5 90.5 89.0 89.0
13 73.7 44.7 73.6 81.8 88.4
14 9.5 81.3 81.3 88.9 88.9
15 20.2 80.2 80.2 90.5 90.5
16 451.9 36.3 72.2 80.5 88.1
17 133.3 59.4 73.7 85.3 87.8
18 229.5 53.3 81.2 83.9 88.1
19 6.5 84.8 84.8 91.0 91.0
20* 4042.4 30.3 35.7 80.8 81.9
21 22.2 3.6 8.0 74.4 75.4
22 72.6 13.9 13.9 76.6 76.6
23 56.2 20.0 20.0 88.0 88.0
24 16.3 20.0 20.0 88.0 88.0
25 4.7 51.1 51.1 87.2 87.2
26 188.4 24.8 64.8 78.5 89.7
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
47
27 5.4 23.4 23.4 88.4 88.4
28 12.4 39.8 39.8 80.0 80.0
S56 229.9 8.0 25.2 75.3 78.4
S57 40.2 6.0 3.1 74.3 74.3
S58 151.2 6.7 6.7 74.5 74.5
S60 159.7 62.7 63.4 84.5 84.6
S61 157.5 27.1 43.8 83.0 85.5
S138 239.0 2.0 51.7 74.0 86.2
* Area 20 also includes Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 in this table and
in the SWMM Model.
This table shows the total drainage areas; e.g. area 1 has about 950 acres. Percent Impervious
is defined as how much of the basin does not let rainfall infiltrate into the ground. In area 1,
31% of drainage is occurs on roads, parking lots, or whatever it may be where water is not able
to infiltrate. In the plan for development, that number jumps up to 45%; for the same rainfall
event there will be more runoff just because of that. The curve number utilizes land use,
keeping in mind that areas that were green space are possibly now developed differently. As
the curve number increases, so does the runoff. A pretty substantial change is in basin 11 going
from 2% impervious up to 50%. This gives you a good feeling for the magnitude of changes
being looked at, versus changes in specific locations.
Area Peak Flows
Q5 Q100 Q5/ACRE Q100/ACRE
Area Existing
(cfs)
Futur
e (cfs)
Existing
(cfs)
Future
(cfs)
Existing
(cfs)
Future
(cfs)
Existing
(cfs)
Future
(cfs)
1 897 1286 1768 2516 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.6
2 752 1225 1438 2432 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.7
3 475 500 981 1032 1.1 1.1 2.2 2.3
4 206 209 438 444 1.6 1.7 3.5 3.5
5 314 320 628 642 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.2
6 287 287 550 550 1.3 1.3 2.5 2.5
7 9 37 33 78 0.3 1.2 1.0 2.5
8 5 5 18 18 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.0
9 20 42 43 83 0.5 1.0 1.0 2.0
10 3 15 10 32 0.3 1.4 0.9 3.0
11 4 15 12 35 0.4 1.5 1.2 3.6
12 46 46 97 97 2.7 2.7 5.6 5.6
13 70 131 127 278 0.9 1.8 1.7 3.8
14 25 25 53 53 2.6 2.6 5.6 5.6
15 54 54 112 112 2.7 2.7 5.5 5.5
16 449 813 847 1636 1.0 1.8 1.9 3.6
17 260 315 504 621 2.0 2.4 3.8 4.7
18 420 584 777 1133 1.8 2.5 3.4 4.9
19 24 24 40 40 3.7 3.7 6.1 6.1
20* 2997 3588 5928 6601 0.7 0.9 1.5 1.6
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
48
21 3 8 6 13 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6
22 44 44 74 74 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0
23 48 48 82 82 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.5
24 9 9 24 24 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.5
25 10 10 17 17 2.1 2.1 3.6 3.6
26 189 454 341 727 1.0 2.4 1.8 3.9
27 5 5 14 14 0.9 0.9 2.6 2.6
28 21 21 36 36 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.9
S56 50 167 175 320 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.4
S57 9 8 36 34 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.8
S58 53 53 176 176 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2
S60 215 217 435 440 1.3 1.4 2.7 2.8
S61 157 213 286 412 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.6
S138 21 465 35 843 0.1 1.9 0.15 3.5
* Area 20 also includes Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, and Area 6 in this table and in the SWMM
Model.
The above table shows the calculated area peak flows. Area 1 has some development and goes
from 31% of impermeable areas up to 45% for a 5-year flow. Area 1 has a 5-year flow outfall
which goes from 900 cubit feet/second (cfs) to almost 1,300 cfs. The 100-year flow would go
from 1,770 cfs to 2,500 cfs. These kind of outflow numbers aren’t typically seen, however the
reason being is the city has so many bottlenecks in the system, that this flow is out there but it
is not getting to a point where water is conveyed to one area, but rather forcing localized little
flooding problems in many areas.
These are normalized flows per acre of area for flows occurring in both a 5-year and a 100-year
event. If there was a flow of 900 cfs, Area 1 has a drainage basin that was just under a thousand
acres; this amounts to about .9 cfs/acre. This chart helps create an idea of which areas are
most heavily developed; a 5-year flow as high as 2.7 cfs/acre of area versus something much less
developed might be down as low as 0.3 cfs/acre. Bain 20 is includes basins 3-4-5-6 which all
drain into basin 20 as it drains out, which causes some very high numbers for basin 20. Basin
20 is a much larger area than all of the other drainage basins.
Big Sioux Flows
Thompson gave a comparison of what those area peak flow numbers mean and how big they
really are. He compared the numbers to the daily flow data available for the Big Sioux River
(average monthly values). The flow of the Big Sioux River is 1,100 cfs in April 2008. Peak
numbers on the area peak flow graph showed some numbers that were above that 1,100 cfs
range. The big disconnect is the 1,100 cfs for 30 straight days on the Big Sioux River and the
numbers you saw on that last tables are 1,000 cfs for 5 minutes within the city. There is a very
big difference between peak flows and average flows, but it brings into perspective how big
some of these peak events would be. The highest average daily flow of the Big Sioux River on
the highest day was back in 2001, although 2007 had some very high values.
The Channel Maintenance Model looks at future conditions and determines what type of
improvements would be needed to pass the 100-year event flow through the city. All
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
49
suggested improvements were assumed to be in place, and any place they were conveying or
just passing flows, they assumed were going to be grass channels; something that would need
more maintenance. If these channels were over-grown, the amount of water that can flow
through the channel was really restricted; vegetation will basically work to block the flows. If
the city designed and implemented a system that would be able to pass the 100-year flow and
then did not maintain that system, in about 1/3 of the areas, the channel with overgrown
vegetation that was designed for the 100-year event, wouldn’t pass the 5-year event.
Thompson stressed if the city is moving towards some drainage improvements, it is not just the
capital costs, but also the need to maintain (the ongoing maintenance of these structures) these
improvements, so that you actually get the benefit of what you are spending your money on.
The recommended improvements are geared towards the ability to pass the 100-year event
(5.75 inches of rain in one 24 hour period). These recommended improvements consist of 5
things: 1) Detention Facilities. A detention element takes water running in and holds it; think
of it as a pond. The benefit of any detention facility is that you have a big peak of water coming
in. If you have a pond, that peak water will come in, fills up that pond and the ponds effectively
regulate the water going out on the downstream end; there is more water coming in than going
out. Detention can drastically reduce the peak flow or the size requirements for any
improvements downstream. Detention facilities effectively reduce the peak flow level by one-
third. 2) Conveyance Elements (ways to pass water). This included grass swales, concrete
channels, box culverts, etc. 3) Flood Warning System. There are some areas where with really
low spots and no practical way to get storm water moving in to get out in a quick manner. The
railroad viaduct is the main example where you’re stuck because there is a low spot, and
instead of coming up with whatever type of facility to try to fix that, you are probably better off
just warning people during a flood event that this is not the place to be. 4) Improvements in
master plan limited to major areas only. 5) Eminent Domain or other means to add more
detention on currently developed property was one of the things not looked, but may be more
economical to the city. Adding detention where there may be development now was also not
looked at. Thompson commented as you look at where you want to go and the costs and
benefits of some of the drainage improvements, you may choose to consider eminent domain
as something that makes sense from a cost benefit standpoint. If you could have high up in the
basin area a big detention pond that would drastically reduce the flow on everything
downstream, you would be able to save all kinds of capital costs on downsizing pipes. So, lets
say there was an area that without a detention pond up stream, we’ve got 1,500 cfs coming in.
Everything downstream would have to be designed to pass that 1,500 cfs plus whatever
additional flows come in. If you could build a pond even bigger than those we looked at, maybe
you could cut that number in half. So instead of 1,500 cfs, you may be now dealing with 800 cfs
going out and much money for infrastructure passing 800 cfs versus passing 1,500 cfs could be
saved. This is not addressed as an option in this model, just something to think about
City staff identified four proposed detention areas. The locations of these were chosen based
upon areas that the city has property or the city has talked with landowners about potentially
acquiring property. This did not get into the removal of any existing development.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
50
Cost estimates were generated for each recommended improvement, major drainage items. A
full-blown cost estimate trying to quantify all the earthworks and all the re-vegetation, and
those types of things was not done. Since most of the improvements were conveyance
elements or channels or culverts they determined what that cost was from estimates generated
from known material costs, bid documents provided by the city, costs for similar projects and
engineering judgment. This is not looking at every pipe in the system, only major drainage
crossings, and the major improvements required to pass these flows.
Costs stated are for capital costs only and do not include all costs likely associated with
drainage improvements. Costs that were not considered included: easements that may be
required, property acquisition that may be required, potential utility or other conflicts,
upgrading or facility between major drainage structures, upgrading of ‘neighborhood’ level
drainage features, and operations and maintenance.
Assumed Minor Cost Items
• Site Preparation 10%
• Erosion, Water & Sediment Control 5%
• Minor Drainage Elements/Incidentals 20%
• Mobilization/Demobilization 5%
• Design and Permitting 10%
• Construction Management 8%
• Contingencies 10%
TOTAL 68%
Just those major items do not in any way encompass the true cost of the project. Other
categories they included were: site preparation (10%), erosion, water and sediment control
(5%), minor drainage elements that may include special fittings, orifice plates, incidentals (20%),
mobilization/demobilization for the contractor (5%), design and permitting (10%), construction
management (8%), and contingencies (10%). These percentages add an additional 68% to the
major drainage items costs. For example, the cost for putting in a culvert is $100. The cost for
that would be $168 based upon adding that 68%.
Thompson stated in reviewing improvements for a 5-year event and a 100-year event, if the
system overall is not improved to these levels, all these improvements will do is move the
problem onto somebody else.
In the case of study area #1, you are looking at 5-year storm if we can use detention or no
detention, then the 100-year with or without any detention. Study area #2, here we have zero
cost. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a problem, which means that based on the
information that’s out there right now, there is no way to define something that works. The
problem there is that the pipe things are going through is what’s called surcharge. The problem
is somewhere downstream and water is backing up to come in and cause a problem here. So
without a detailed analysis of that whole piping network, they really could not assign what
improvements would work for that area. Move on to the next one that talks more about the
major drainage areas, the 35 that they have. They are not talking about small dollars.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
51
Overall, in looking at the 5-year and the 100-year, there is pretty much at least a factor of 2 in
costs. While they don’t have this for the overall city-wide recommendations, where they
would say in this case, looking at improve things to the 5-year storm with retention versus the
100-year storm with retention, it is 3x more expensive to improve to 100 year. In some cases,
it is not that dramatic. In study area #3, $60,000 versus $110,000. As a general rule of thumb,
what they are seeing here was at least a factor of 2 going from 5-year improvements to 100
year improvements.
Capital Improvement Costs
Area
Recommended
Improvement Cost Area
Recommended
Improvement Cost
1 7,525,529 19 0
2 14,618,706 20* 11,649,446
3 5,281,497 21 0
4 1,697,932 22 0
5 2,863,555 23 0
6 1,379,474 24 0
7 3,517 25 0
8 0 26 0
9 0 27 0
10 0 28 63,993
11 0 28** 276,341
12 0 S56 0
13 117,980 S57 0
14 0 S58 0
15 0 S60 0
16 426,988 S61 0
17 0 S138 0
18 134,735 S138** 276,341
Total 34,540,894
* This cost includes the costs for Areas 3-6.
** This cost applies of S138 does not have adequate storage.
It was not included in the total cost.
The total of $34,540,894 for Capital Improvement Costs is not an accurate representation of all
costs, because of how sub-basin 20. Basin 20 is the large basin through the heart of town that
takes flows from sub-basins 3-4-5-6. The costs for basin 20 include all the costs for basins 3-4-
5-6. It is done as such so if the city wanted to focus on basin 4, they would know those costs
versus the cost for basin 20, which includes basin 4. As a reminder, this dollar amount does
not include the interior piping systems, only major crossings. With minor improvements
needed in addition to this, this number is going to expand and is obviously going to be a very
big number.
Cost Breakdown
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
52
Improvement Type Percent of Total
Concrete Box Culvert 68%
Rectangular Concrete 24%
Detention 4%
Flood Warning System 0.04%
Grass Channel * 0%
Storm Sewer Pipe 4%
* In instances where items had more than one recommended improvement, the cost for a
concrete channel was used.
In breaking down the improvements based upon type, in the long run detention may be more in
the best interest of the city. Currently, there are only four areas that they looked at for
detention. In the total cost, detention is only 4%. There is the Flood Warning System which is
also a very small overall percentage. The rest of the improvement types are ways to convey
flows. Ninety-Six percent of these total costs are just ways to move water from point A to
point B. The Grass channel shows up as 0% cost, as in all locations that could be a grass
channel, a concrete channel can be installed, which is more expensive to build. Concrete is
more expensive, but considering the ongoing maintenance with a grass channel, it is a cost
benefit to look at. The grass channel at 0% is anything that could have been grass has been
accosted out as a concrete box. They are only assuming concrete in those locations.
General Recommendations. What the city is already doing with requiring retention and
detention is important to continue. If drainage problems are not taken care of locally, at
whatever that development site is, those peak flows are increasing by 40% by the year 2020. By
always requiring detention and retention on site, future conditions could look a lot like existing
conditions. Some places won’t be able to retain or detain flows, like a front yard that runs out
into the road. The future will never be able to look exactly like existing from a drainage
standpoint without doing some other measures. Moving forward, you want to do everything
you can to make sure the peak flows don’t get any worse than they are right now.
Regional detention is not recommended. Regional ponds are created when there is currently a
detention pond, so a developer doesn’t want to build another detention pond, but rather utilize
an existing detention pond, thus naming it a regional detention. The city could use these
regional ponds to retrofit the situation for the areas that don’t currently have any detention.
You could use these regional ponds to route existing flows through, thus reducing peaks from
existing flows rather than using any regional ponds to reduce peak flows from future
development.
Maintenance. In the model assessing channels that were sized for the 100-year event and
finding a lot of them couldn’t convey flows from a 5-year storm if they were not properly
maintained, emphasis how important it is that to have an active maintenance program for
drainage facilities.
There is difficulty in not only implementing improvements, but there are huge costs associated
with these improvements as well.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
53
How does the city move forward with these or some type of improvements like these? One
concern is the amount of money available to spend and the best way to do that. In a drainage
situation where there’s an upstream/downstream path, you can’t very easily start upstream or
even in the middle and figure you are going to be able to fix the problem. All you are really
doing in those instances is moving the problem downstream. The logical way to implement any
type of drainage improvement is to start at the downstream end, because as improvements are
made you already have the infrastructure below to get that water from upstream out of the
system. Based upon current land uses and future zoning, don’t move all the way to the
downstream end, but rather move part way up, and at some point in the downstream end, it
could be looked at as helping the county with problems farther down the basin.
The type of improvements needed is the largest thing that comes out of this plan. In the
beginning, looking at being able to detain or convey the 100-year storm was the focus, and
maybe that’s not the thing to be looking at. Maybe the city should be thinking that because of
the magnitude of improvements needed and the costs associated with them, maybe there’s
something else we should be looking at, for example a 5-year storm. There’s nothing that says
it’s a 100-year storm or nothing.
Possible Next Steps
• Require improvements with all future development
• Decide to design improvements to convey the 5-year (or toner) rather than 100-
year???
• Define priorities based on realistic budget
• Likely need to approach drainage problem using a basin by basin approach to ensure
all improvements are compatible.
Some possible steps include: 1) Maintain existing facilities, 2) require improvements with all
future development, 3) decide to design improvements to convey the 5-year event rather than
the 100-year event, 5) define priorities based on a realistic budget. It’s hard to say one
particular area is of priority, partly because of the costs associated with it. In moving forward
with planning like this, a likely or potential logical method would be to define some kind of a
capital budget. If you would say over the next 5 years you are going to have $3 Million, then
maybe what you can do is look at a plan and say what will $3 million achieve knowing it doesn’t
make sense to start on an upstream end and work downstream. Maybe there’s some amount
that’s the best benefit for a certain sum of money and tackle the problem. 6) the likely need to
approach drainage problems using a basin-by-basin approach to ensure all improvements are
compatible. Most of those recommendations would be major basin-by-major basin. The best
benefit for the dollar is if you focus on one of the 35 basins. Of those 35, there were roughly
15 basins with recommended improvements, so you might say lets work with this problem and
then this problem instead of trying to work with 6 or 10 little problems within each basin.
Council Questions
Munsterman asked in looking at the 35 major basins, is there a hierarchy of those basins? No,
don’t read into the assigned numbers. There are 28 locations where water leaves city
property. Every numeric area is an area that has a drainage path that goes out/away from city
property.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
54
Munsterman asked for clarification on the distinct drainage patterns of areas 1 through 6. The
drainage pattern of area 1 collects, drains down and runs along the East Side of Medary. Area 2
runs down the west side of Medary. Basins 3-4-5-6 drain to the west.
Munsterman asked if there are 3 major drainage patterns out of the 5. Yes, there are 3 main
outfalls from the system.
Munsterman asked for clarification on the costs. Area 1 has a cost of $7.5 million. Area 2 has
a cost of $14 million. Areas 3-4-5-6 have a cost of $11.6 million. The 68% is already factored
into these numbers.
Bartley asked how flooding was defined; if it was water running across the street, backed-up in
the sewer, property damage, or just temporarily a car splashed through it until they got to the
other side? Thompson stated these 12 areas were identified by receiving specific complaints.
The most severe of these was in Area 4 where there’s a small channel that goes through a
parking lot. The report indicated a car was actually moved, during a peak flow, down towards
the outfall. Some may be nuisance, and some may be every time it rains they have problems.
City Engineer Jackie Lanning asked Council Member Bartley if he was asking more about the
about the model and potential flooding areas on the mapping and how flooding was defined?
Yes, the severity of the problem. Bartley stated he understands there’s a cost benefit analysis
we’re going to have to make at some particular point, but what he wants to understand is what
the actual physical damage or cost is. He knows it is inconvenient to slow down to drive on a
flooded street once or twice a year, but does that justify the 100-year or 5-year cost to
improve that so we never have to drive across the flooded street? He understands the viaduct
is going to flood. It would cost a lot to change that. We probably have more cars lost in the
viaduct than we do anywhere else in town because somebody made a wrong choice and tried
to get through there. He feels we can solve that problem with bigger barricades. The cost
benefit to him is important to explain to the citizens of Brookings. He asked what problems
are we actually going to solve? He knows of some issues of flooding some storage sheds by the
airport on a constant basis of a 5-year storm. He would like to solve that problem to a certain
degree, but do we solve every one of these? He doesn’t see a cost benefit analysis in the
report, but rather a supplementary report that could be handled by city staff to help us make a
decision.
Thompson agreed. When they identified flooding, they identified it showing the major
submerged crossings. Their program can step you through a model of what happens, in
increments of 5 minutes, with a 100-year storm. In the model, if an area is flooded out for
more than 2 time steps, .1 hours, it was nuisance. If it was flooded for longer than that they
said an improvement should be implemented, and an improvement was implemented in the
model. If it was flooded, but for less than that time period, they ignored that as a problem.
Reed questioned in basin 20, area 4, in order to fix that problem, we also have to fix areas 3-4-
5-6 to solve that problem? Thompson stated not necessarily, but you want to be careful. You
don’t want to just jump in at one spot and fix it there, you want to evaluate what is happening
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
55
downstream. With something like this you may say we don’t want to improve it for a 100-year
event, because we know all that’s happening downstream. You may find out that when you
look at that system, you can do some minor improvements that will reduce the frequency of
flooding. Reed commented that the $11 Million would solve that problem, but there’s probably
a range of solutions up to $11 Million. Yes.
Munsterman asked for clarification of what areas make up the $11.6 Million number. It consists
of Areas 3-4-5-6, with one minor improvement in area 20 that is outside of areas 3-4-5-6. The
$14 million is a separate number for area 2.
Weldon asked of drainage areas 3-4-5-6 and 20 draining to the West, is that the drainage ditch
along the railroad tracks heading west near the airport and by Rainbow Play Systems and does
that drainage ditch go to the Big Sioux River? Yes. Weldon asked then if that one drainage
ditch is handling all 5 of those drainage basins. Yes.
Reed asked Thompson if it would be possible to overlay the basin map and the flowing
locations. Yes.
Weldon asked for classification of the 5-year and 100-year events. He stated it seems like
we’ve been getting a lot more frequent heavy storms. A 100-year storm seems to be
happening more frequently than just once every 100 years and he asked if climatologists are
looking at climate change as part of the cause, or is something in the industry looking at that to
see if there’s any changes regarding classifications of events. Are there degradations of a 25-
year storm, a 50-year storm, a 75-year storm to help us figure out which approach might be
best? Thompson stated most of this climate data came from work that was done by the NILA.
What they do is split flows out for any area, their maps will give you 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-
year events and it will break those up from 30 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hour increments. He
doesn’t think there’s been any adjustment to the official rainfall maps that would deal with more
recent trends as far as changing long-term trends, or if we just happen to be in a wetter cycle
that will revert itself back.
Munsterman asked Lanning in looking at those 6 areas and their drainage patterns (east of
Medary, west of Medary, west of airport, etc.), what area has the most problems? Lanning
stated they have the full view of what is going on with the city and some of the additional study
areas given to Troy based on pictures taken during 2-year and 5-year events and some localized
flooding, which are all separate from the full master plan. There was a situation with the 2.89
inch rainfall the other day, where Sawgrass Drive and 15th Street South experienced some
localized flooding. Localized flooding makes her nervous because you could have property
damage. In the 12 study areas she’s seen some critical situations that have come close to
property damage. Lanning thinks looking at areas 1 through 6 is best. In looking at the maps,
there’s some confusion where 3-4-5-6 drain down through the tracks. Area 3 drains northerly
on the south side of the tracks with one equalizing pipe crossing north/south under the tracks.
This pipe was cleaned out and is flowing as good as it can. Area 4 flows on the north side of
tracks. Area 20 runs more northerly and westerly instead of exiting southerly. More
discussion and evaluation of these areas/basins is needed.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
56
Reed asked Lanning if there is a maintenance plan for these certain areas to be cleaned out,
such as under the railroad tracks. Lanning stated the pipe cleanout is a yearly thing. They have
used the drainage fee for maintenance of the storm sewer pipes. She feels our pipe system is
fairly clean. Recently, she has done more of an ongoing visual of our drainage swales, as many
of those around town are vegetated. She was amazed to find out how the capacity could be
enhanced by having a better maintenance plan. She stated she will definitely take a closer look
at using more maintenance funds for regular maintenance.
Public Questions/Comments. Doug Austreim, Austreim Landscaping. Austreim stated this
creek flows through their property and is a major drainage area for the city on the north side.
In his time in Brookings, the only time there had been evacuations in Brookings involved the
areas around Six Mile Creek. He feels it would be a mistake not to take a good look at that
area as part of this entire plan.
Munsterman stated he would like to have city staff look at the cost benefit analysis and analyze
the cost/impact of 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year floods. He would like to see a look at the
maintenance program recommendations and come up with a short and long term plan.
Weldon stated this Drainage Master Plan is clearly one of the councils eight major goals for the
year. Our Storm Drainage Utility Fund raises about $400,000/year at the current rate. Part of
it has to go to maintenance, so it is going to take us a long time to get to that big dollar amount
on that sheet if we are going to try to tackle that. Weldon thinks we need to strategically take
this study and break it down into its various components, specifically the 12 identified areas,
and look at a cost benefit analysis on each one, and try to put some corresponding dollars to
that and figure out a priority basis how much of this we want to bite off, as well as intervals in
terms of time, as this is clearly a multi-year project to try to resolve.
Weldon stated one important disclaimer is if the city has a major flooding incident, not a 100-
year flow, but a 500-year type of event, there are some cases you cannot build systems and
structures big enough to handle every eventuality. You can’t build a system big enough to
handle every flooding catastrophe. He stated we need to be thinking along the basis of how
much are we able to live with, how much can we tolerate and how much can we try to build
with what we can afford. With the consultants help we will be able to dissect this and be able
to come up with a plan that makes a lot of sense. Weldon suggested holding more public
hearings in the future to talk to the community, the neighborhoods, and the developers about
these issues. He thinks the first thing is to continue to do what we have done in the past in
terms of subdivision regulations with managing it at the localized level and we can always tweak
those technical manuals if necessary.
John Moriarty commented he has spent 87 years watching the city grow and watching the city
flood. He thinks it is wonderful how Brookings has been taken care of over the years, but feels
the problem is really larger than these small little areas we are talking about. He stated there is
one area from the tracks north, another area from the tracks south, then there is Timberline,
around the cemetery, and Indian Hills that all flow to the south. He stated that somehow we
have to figure out how we can get this water to the Big Sioux River. The farmers to the north
had a problem with Deer Creek. If you drive west of town (Brookings) about two miles, the
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
57
channel that goes one mile west of Cameron’s Corner flows south to the Big Sioux River. The
other channel goes through the land that is Six Mile Creek. He explained there are two
channels with Six Mile Creek; the deep channel is to the north of the fishponds, and that
channel was filled in by the college and it all flows south into the south channel. No water will
go into the north channel until the south channel gets filled up by the bridge by the Bowling
Alley, then it starts to go to the north. He feels the other problem is when water goes from
Timberline, down past Mike McClemans place. He commented on the holding ponds there,
that they are fine and good for mosquitoes, but when it goes south, it has to fill those, before
the water goes out. He knew the city bought some of Mills’ property for a holding pond on
Medary Ave. South, but most of that water goes on the east side of the road and floods 120
acres by the old airport. He asked why do we stop there, and why don’t we keep going so the
water can get to the Big Sioux River. He commented it was nice to have somebody from
Colorado come to South Dakota with our flatlands, with no hills or nothing, and tell us how to
do this. He thinks that young man did a fine job, but lets remember we’ve got flatland… no
mountains, no snow on the mountains, just flat land.
Thompson clarified with prioritization and the need to start at the downstream end and work
upstream when you are doing something. You don’t start in the middle and have downstream
areas that cannot convey the flows. The definite part of any improvement that would be
opposite of that is detention. If you can add detention basins the further upstream you can add
them, the more improvements you get further downstream. He said if you have money, you
want to start downstream and work upstream, that’s true for the portions of your
improvements where you are conveying water, but any place that you could detain and hold
water, the further upstream you could do that, the better.
Bartley asked Weldon if it would be appropriate for the Council to set some sort of deadline
here to approve this Master Drainage Plan in its draft form. Bartley would like to see getting
this adopted as soon as possible. He feels it has taken a long time to get to this point, and
thinks the first step is to adopt this in its final form and move forward with a more localized
study as necessary. He asked if there was a time frame that would work well in adopting
this…3 months, 6 months?
Weldon clarified this plan is in draft form. He asked Thompson what information is needed
from the city to make a final document. Weldon stated he would rather bring the document
back to the council for final adoption and dive into the specifics after that.
Thompson stated they are not waiting for any more information from the city other than if
there’s any feedback on the document itself. It is a lot of information to digest in a short
amount of time. If they get the go ahead to finalize, it would be just a couple weeks.
Munsterman stated the council will put this on a future action agenda.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to enter into
Executive Session at 5:38 p.m. for personnel reasons with the City Council, City Manager, and
City Attorney present. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
58
Bezdichek, seconded by Bartley, to exit Executive Session at 6:20 p.m. All present voted yes,
motion carried.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Bezdichek, seconded by Bartley, to adjourn. All present
voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
59
Brookings City Council
June 24, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall
with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie
Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunner, Tim Reed (arrived at 5:03 p.m.), Mike McClemans, and
Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk
Shari Thornes were also present.
Tax Increment Finance request for Sieler Addition. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon
reported that this item was on the agenda as a preliminary discussion on a TIF request received
from Oakway Equity Group for a 33 lot housing development. Weldon said staff has received
a request for a pay-as-you-go tax increment housing project for 33 lots in Sieler Addition which
is located west of 7th Avenue South and will consist of street extensions of Remington Street
and Cardinal Drive just north of Hunters Ridge in the south central part of Brookings. The
developer is Oakwood Equity Group.
Weldon said this request would be very similar to the Valley View Addition project recently
approved by the City Council. The developer has agreed to limit the final cost of lot plus home
to less than $160,000 in exchange for using future increment to offset the costs of applicable
infrastructure. If approved, this would be Tax Increment District #4.
The developer has submitted most of the necessary information for the initial steps of the
project which would include a hearing with the Planning Commission to establish the
boundaries of the proposed tax increment district.
At this point, Weldon said staff has not yet had time to develop a tax increment policy which
would govern the use of this economic development tool. He said the City’s Financial Advisor,
Toby Morris, will be assisting the City with that. However, Weldon is envisioning such a policy
to mirror the process was just used on the Valley View Addition project. One addition to that
process would be an initial feasibility determination by the City Council to see if the Council
has sufficient interest in the tax increment request to warrant the developer proceeding. From
this point, the process and investment for the developer will become substantial. This early
feasibility determination will serve to either assist the project or keep the developer from going
through this effort only to have it ultimately denied at the end of the process.
Part of the City Council’s determination of feasibility should include whether or not it wants to
make this subsidy available for such a project in this location; and to what extent the Council
wants to use tax increment. The question of precedent does enter into the equation as well.
However, each request for tax increment needs to stand on its own merits regardless of past
practice. The housing plan does provide some guidance for the City in documenting a need for
housing in this market range. The overriding public policy consideration should be that using
tax increment contributes to an overall public benefit to the community.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
60
Tim Burns, project developer, said this is a preliminary discussion as his group moves forward
with plans to develop nine acres into affordable housing. He noted that affordable housing is at
the forefront of issues in Brookings and many studies have indicated that additional affordable
housing is important to the city. In order to do that, he feels this piece of land is a great
opportunity to use a TIF. He noted this discussion is out of the usual order of the process and
is meant as an informational meeting. They looked at several things in their plans to develop an
affordable housing development. In order to build an affordable home that is also in a nice
neighborhood and fits into that neighborhood, the development group feels important that a
TIF is used. He noted that heating and cooling costs are going up and they are studying and
taking proposals on super-insulated housing options. In order to build this type of home, this
type of financial help is needed. He said they are just starting the process and they understand
there are certain rules they have to follow. This discussion is meant as an introduction to the
issue to hear any reservations to the concept and to respond to questions.
Council Member Whaley asked if any of the homes in the development would be less than
$160,000. She noted that when the Council has discussed the issue of affordable housing in
the past no one could give a dollar amount of what is “affordable.” She asked if any homes
would be in the range of $119,000 to $129,000? Burns said yes, there is a mix of prices in
their preliminary plans and nothing is over $160,000. (Council Member Reed arrived at 5:03 p.m.).
Burns said smaller units would be in the $115,000 range. The range will be $115,000 to
$160,000.
Whaley asked for clarification on the development location, asking if it would be adjacent to the
trees on 15th Street South. Burns said yes, it would be located west of 7th Avenue South on
the other side of the trees.
Weldon noted that the $160,000 number was in the last TIF affordable housing project and was
per the recommendation of financial advisor Toby Morris. Morris said that $160,000 was at
the threshold that is used by South Dakota Housing Development Authority to qualify for
home loans for first time homebuyers. Weldon noted that the Council can set that number at
whatever it wants. That is a statewide market and if the Council feels if the local market is
something different, it could adjust that number. It would be helpful for the developer to know
that number sooner rather than later. The tax increment will be used to write down the costs
of the development to make it affordable for homes in this market area. There isn’t a need for
homes on the upper end of market scale. It is designed to bring down the costs as an incentive
for developers to create quality homes in a lower market area. However, it is tricky to define
what that number is and $160,000 may not be the right number.
Council Member Bartley asked if the $160,000 number for the last TIF district was a state
number. Weldon said yes, it was the benchmark for the Valley View TIF housing development
project.
Bartley asked in the future if that number is a moving target? Weldon said yes, the number is
reviewed at annually, but they may not adjust it.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
61
Bartley noted if any policy this Council or the Planning Commission does now sets a precedent,
but would probably include the fact that it can be adjusted in the future. Weldon agreed that
would be a good piece of information to have in a policy.
Bartley said the City doesn’t have a policy on Tax Increment Districts and more requests are
coming in. In the absence of a policy, he didn’t think it was a critical issue because the
Planning Commission did set that benchmark and the Council agreed with it. He doesn’t have
an issue with their method and thinks the whole TIF process starts with the Planning
Commission to approve and this project needs to go through that step. He cautioned the
Council to not influence the Planning Commission members on how to do that because that
goes around state law. He said some communities use committees to determine these
projects and whether they’re valuable a set housing market and then work out all the details.
There are a lot of details and costs involved and it’s not an easy process. Mr. Burns is asking
for direction from the Council. Bartley said the Council doesn’t know because the Council
isn’t determining those details. The cost to develop those details falls to the developer.
There’s been precedence with Planning Commission and an interest in working with the
developer on this type of proposal. Rather than a blanket blessing, he thinks a TIF policy
discussion should be on Council agenda fairly rapidly. He encouraged the development group
to move forward and work with the Planning Commission and he doesn’t want to delay this
request by needing to establish policy first.
Burns said he understands the need to set policy and this discussion was meant as an
introduction and a way to start conversation. He will be working with the City Manager and
financial advisors Toby Morris and Todd Meierhenry to make sure everything is set up
properly.
Whaley said her biggest concern is for younger couples moving to town and that they not be
scared when they hear TIF districts with houses at $160,000 as affordable. She feels it is
important that the public know the developer can build houses for less and that they can build
to suit their needs at less money. Burns agreed.
Brunner said when the Council develops a policy, the city may want to tie it directly to the
statewide SDHA number because TIF districts have five years to develop and the state number
could increase and they are locked in at a lower number. The City may want to tie to the
statewide number so there is flexibility over a 2 to 3 year period to keep up with the market.
Weldon said the district has five years to complete the infrastructure and complete the
development of the subdivision and it could take longer to build the homes.
Burns said they will act as a “suitcase contractor” and will develop the land fully themselves.
However, they have not gone through all the steps and aren’t completely familiar with all the
rules. At this time they are prepared to develop the infrastructure and move forward as a
general contractor in home building.
Weldon asked if $160,000 was the maximum limit for a completed lot and house. Burns
responded yes and clarified that another builder would have to abide by that rule.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
62
Weldon asked Burns to describe the proposed floor plans and square footage options. Burns
said all will be split-foyer design due to the water table in that area. Square footage will range
between 900 and 1200 square feet, the larger with unfinished basements. All homes would be
single family with double attached garages.
Bartley suggested a “mixed” use of type of housing that would increase the taxable base to help
repay the TIF. He recently attended a National League of Cities conference where he heard
about cities having the tendency to use zoning regulations but some had mixed housing density
as to the price ranges. Cities could require that a certain number of homes be within a certain
price range. Higher price point homes allow the TIF to pay for itself. It’s a way to help the
developer recoup some money.
Dan Hanson, Planning and Zoning Administrator, said he wasn’t familiar with the financial side
verses density. It’s hard to combine the two issues into an ordinance. He’s aware of density
bonuses to allow for mixed densities. The financial aspect would have to be handled in the
agreement.
Burns said that concept would work well with a larger development; however, with nine acres
it would be difficult to plan for multiple zoning. He would encourage the Planning Commission
to provide incentives for mixed use and bonuses with a bigger parcel. However, this concept
wouldn’t work with a nine-acre scale.
McClemans suggested the Council move forward with setting a policy on tax increment
financing districts and it parallels what was done with the Valley View Addition project. He
would think this was identical and would work as well.
Validation Proposals for the Swiftel Center Expansion Project. City Manager Jeffrey
Weldon noted that at the City Council’s goal-setting session earlier this year it determined it
would be advisable to get a second opinion about certain aspects of the feasibility study done by
VenuWorks on behalf of the Swiftel Center for its proposed expansion. By Council action, he
was directed to solicit proposals from consultants that could be considered to conduct such a
study. The major purpose of a validation study is to scrutinize the market analysis, assessment
of need, and economic impact which is the whole justification for the project.
Weldon secured proposals from three companies that specialize in market analysis and
feasibility studies for public facilities. The companies are: Entertainment and Sports Consulting
(ESC) of Providence, R.I.; Convention Sports and Leisure (CSL) of Minneapolis, MN; and HVS
Convention, Sports, & Entertainment Facilities Consulting of Chicago, Ill.
When soliciting responses, he asked for simple, basic, straight-forward description of services
and costs. ESC complied with his request and submitted only a two page list of services and
associated costs which were $10,800 for the contract and $2,150 in reimbursable expenses.
CSL and HVS submitted much more comprehensive proposals. The CSL cost is $60,000 for
the contract and a maximum of reimbursable expenses of $6,000. HVS submitted a contract
proposal for $25,000 and any reimbursable expenses they incur.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
63
In response to his description of the project to the vendors as a validation study to a feasibility
study already completed, CSL did not review the VenuWorks study indicating they did not
want to be biased by that report in preparing their proposal or their report. On the other
hand, HVS and ESC did see the VenuWorks report so their proposal was influenced by what
they saw. This leads to the conclusion that the CSL proposal would actually constitute a
comprehensive re-do of the VenuWorks study and constitute a repeat of the process with
another company, instead of just a validation study of key aspects. The cost analysis appears to
reflect this. The fact the less costly proposals actually reviewed the VenuWorks study, and
their proposals seemed to actually be geared in a response to the VenuWorks study, seems to
indicate they are tailor-made for an actual validation analysis.
Weldon said advantages of the CSL proposal is that they are close, being in located in
Minneapolis, and they have done a significant amount of work in the upper Midwest. They are a
very large company and they would be working on a relatively small project so that has its
advantages and disadvantages. CSL also offered an alternate approach which would cut the cost
of the first task from $38,000 to $25,000. The first two tasks are the most important and the
City could contract with just Tasks I and II and either quit the project if the data does not merit
further study; or not do the subsequent tasks if the Council believes these are not needed. The
point is that we do not have to contract with the full amount of $60,000. He questioned the
need for the subsequent tasks. Likewise, the HVS proposal has a base fee of $20,000 and an
optional economic impact analysis for an additional $5,000.
Weldon recently met with the Swiftel Advisory Board to review the proposals. The Board
approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that we contract with ESC for the
validation study for $10,800 plus $2150 for expenses. They also asked Weldon to get more
information on the company such as references, estimated timeline, etc.
Weldon provided the following options for Council consideration:
1) Adopt the recommendation of the Advisory Board and contract with ESC.
2) Accept one of the other two proposals and contract with either of them.
3) Reject all proposals and direct staff to find other proposals.
4) Reject all proposals and conclude the study analysis with the VenuWorks report.
5) Take no action at this time and continue to study the issue or proposals.
Weldon noted that this is one of City’s major goals for the year and contracting for a second
opinion in the form of a validation study to the VenuWorks report is part of that overall
strategy. Future steps will depend upon the outcome of this validation study.
He noted additional information that was handed out at the meeting.
Weldon recommended the Council adopt the recommendation of the Swiftel Advisory Board
and contract with Entertainment and Sports Consulting, LLC. This item was not budgeted for
and he plans to make a request for such funding to the Visitor Promotions Board at their next
meeting. If it is denied, he will bring the proposal back to the Council to further explore other
financial options.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
64
Deb Garbers, Swiftel Center Advisory Board member, said the group reviewed the studies and
expansion plan and did determine the study done by VenuWorks was thorough. However,
having someone from the outside back up the study and add components would be desirable.
The Board agreed with the recommendations from the City Manager and found that firm’s
proposal as the most beneficial and service for the least amount of money.
Bartley asked for a timeframe to complete the study. Weldon said all the firms could do the
job in four to six weeks. Bartley asked how long the bid was good for. Weldon said usually
30 days. Bartley urged the Council to press ahead while the data is comparable rather than
put it off for six months.
Whaley said that the Council doesn’t need to put this off, but asked where the $12,000 would
come from. Weldon said this was not in the City or the Swiftel Center’s budget. He has a
request into the Visitor Promotions Committee under their “non-event funding” program for
consideration on June 30th.
ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to approve
pending funding from the Visitor Promotions Committee.
Discussion: Council Member Reed said when the Council was originally talking about this issue, they
weren’t talking about validation of the study; it was validation of the concept. He feels this action is
getting away from that intent and doesn’t think there’s value. This study looks at the capabilities
currently of the Swiftel Center and it goes through the capabilities of other facilities in the region and
what do events that happen in this region and what they need. He feels this study would skip the
marketing study and it jumps to the proforma. It doesn’t say whether or not these people would come
here, it just addresses what they need. He feels it’s the proforma that the Council wants to look at and
validate. In his opinion, the need is to look at what is the potential of the Center and what types of
issues may come in front of us that may block the Center getting these events. That’s what we have to
understand. To build it and hope they will come – we’re going to have problems and he feels it will set
it up for failure in the community. He feels the Council needs more data to convince the community
that this is something to do. He cited examples of marketing research from previous employment
where they made sure the product “sticks” and are able to sell it. He feels we’re talking about building
something that everyone else has. What do we have that we’ll be able to sell? He didn’t feel the
study looked at that at all. In looking at state/regional events, we’re just adding one more year into the
rotation. We’re not looking at how often they will come to Brookings. In this region, will groups come to
Brookings instead of Sioux Falls? What should we offer to make sure we can attract vendors or events
to come to Brookings? Can we get vendors to show here instead of Sioux Falls? The idea needs a
validation. We need a plan, not do what everyone else does. There’s no marketing plan behind this.
We need a vision of how to go forward, the right vision, in order to have a better chance to sell the
community. When the city goes to bond this more than likely will get referred. If the Council doesn’t
have the answer to what we’re going to do with this, this could very likely get voted down. He cited the
amount of research the SDSU athletic department did when deciding to go to Division I. They spent
the time and found out whether or not people would come. He is against moving ahead with a
$10,000 commitment and he isn’t ready for the $60,000. He feels it is important that we have a
vision that we automatically sell to the community and it’s the right thing to do.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
65
Weldon said the intent is not to provide a marketing plan. The plan comes later. What was intended
to do is a market assessment and VenuWorks study went into that significantly. What he instructed
the proposers to do was to validate the market assessment. We need to know if we can get people to
come here and what do we need to do that. That’s what is envisioned with this scope of work, it’s not
a marketing plan, it’s a marketing assessment. He agreed with Reed that we need to come up with a
program that can be supportive of the project to take to the community, but we’re not at that stage
yet.
Reed said if we’re going to make the decision to spend money, we need that market information.
Weldon said that is what is intended to achieve – the marketability about the types of events. He
noted that not all markets are on a rotating list, many are.
Reed said if the study would give a true market assessment and understand what really could come to
the Center, then he would be for it. However, he didn’t see that in the proposal. The more complete
proposal from CSL is more complete with case studies analysis details; a much more thorough package
than the VenuWorks study. He’s not sure if it’s to validate the VenuWorks study or to just gather more
marketing data to better understand our market.
Bartley felt it was a marketing and feasibility study and feels the Council needs to validate it and
assumes that VenuWorks has done a lot of what is requested. The City’s downfall is that it’s trusting
the VenuWork’s data represents the true market. Are we building it (Swiftel Center expansion)? How
do we sell it to the public? He feels this is our first step and the $60,000 study is probably the way to
go but he’s not ready to spend the money until he has a validation that this is somewhat accurate and
not based on hype that can’t be backed up with data. He assumes the City will get that validation with
this study for $12,500. In his opinion, the City Council wants a validation that this data is good. If
Weldon receives funding from the Visitor Promotions Committee to move forward with the validation it
will set the stage for the Council to make a further decision on further analysis on how we’re going to
proceed. What’s it going to look like? How are we going to market it? This is a quasi-proforma from
the people who manage the facility now based on their experiences and their facilities. Hopefully, we’ll
get a little more out of this validation study. He thinks the proforma and marketing comes later when
the City determines exactly what it will build and can we sell it.
Reed asked what the City Council needs validated?
Bartley said the study would validate the number of claims for the convention numbers if they had the
facilities it’s lacking right now. When looking at these types of facilities it is apparent that Sioux Falls is
pursuing a bigger market. They would like to give Brookings what they have and move on to something
else. If Brookings is positioned properly to take the smaller events from Sioux Falls, we stand a good
chance. However, if not in that position because we didn’t have the vision to build it with appropriate
facilities, then those events will go elsewhere. Sioux Falls is setting itself up to be a larger regional
convention market. Brookings is a step behind Sioux Falls and it won’t get the same markets, we’ll get
another tiered market which is spelled out in the study. The question is whether we believe the data or
not. He agreed that many markets are overbuilt hoping markets would come and they didn’t and
Brookings needs to be careful not to step into that hole, but he feels Brookings is diverse enough on our
location and types of market to be in competition with other facilities. He also noted that moving the
Swiftel Center up to the next level will open up smaller events to other facilities in the area. He feels
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
66
this as close to a proforma as we’re going to get. He noted that SDSU had a lot of faith that Division I
would work and it did. The City needs to study and put together a plan and this is the first step.
McClemans said in reading their proformas the $60,000 proposal seems to provide a lot of information
and broader study. Gathering as much information as possible is desirable before moving forward, but
he isn’t convinced on the $60,000 study. He wants to make sure the City is doing something that is
going to be successful.
Reed recommended the Council pause on this issue and to look at what this group offers and have
additional discussion with this group. He suggested checking to see if they could do the initial part (mid
level proforma) and then have a plan with the next step. If the Council is okay at that point, then
proceed with spending additional money. In the grand scheme of the expansion project he doesn’t
think $60,000 would be that much to spend on it.
Weldon asked for clarification on the recommended proposals and alternatives. The CSL proposal
could provide a review at $38,000 or as low as $25,000 (Task 1: Market Demand Analysis and Task
II: Building Program and Event Levels Analysis). It’s worth considering as another way to proceed.
There was discussion what a $25,000 study would provide verses the $12,500 study. Under the CSL
proposal, it reduces down to task 1 and 2. Not included would be the preliminary construction cost
analysis, financial operations analysis, economic impact and cost/benefit analysis, and funding
alternatives analysis.
Munsterman commented that if the City wants a true independent study that will tell us if we’re on
target, then a deeper market analysis may be needed and he’s leaning more towards that work to be
done now. At end of day, if the City goes this route with a deeper analysis - over next four years it will
be important to have that independent analysis rather than spot checking with other studies. He’d
rather spend the money up front now and get as much done now. That direction needs to come from
the City Council to the Visitor Promotions Committee. It is a promotional item and they may not be
able to fully fund this request. He would favor doing it right. It’s better to make sure to do the
homework up front.
Bartley asked if the City Council should make it the full $60,000 and get it moving. Munsterman said
the Council could give the Visitor Promotions Committee that direction.
ACTION: A substitute motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to
approve up to $60,000 contingent on funding from VPC and then make
determination of which study and which portions thereof based on the findings of
the results, pro rated as necessary by the city manager.
Discussion: Weldon asked for clarification of which task the Council wanted in the study, referring
them to Page 24 of the CSL study. He suggested that outline got to the core of what the City needs.
The other task may not be needed or city staff can do some of them. However, tasks 1 and 2 are the
most important that will provide the needed data.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
67
Garbers said the City needs the study of customer potential and market analysis. It would also provide
the missing parts of the study which would validate the study. This study along with what’s already been
done will provide a complete package.
Reed said he felt Weldon was correct in that there are some items that the City can do ourselves and
as we move along, look to having those items done.
Tom Richter, Swiftel Center Executive Director, commented that all three of the companies would
probably alter their proposals to provide additional information if given an opportunity. That would
provide the Council with three options rather than one. Weldon noted that two of them provide more
information than was requested.
On the substitute motion, all present voted yes, motion carried.
On the original motion with the substitution, all present voted yes, motion carried.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager responded to questions pertaining to the
action items on the agenda.
City Clerk Report. Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk, provided a briefing on upcoming
invitations and obligations.
City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Bartley requested Council discussion regarding a policy on tax increment financing districts.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to approve the
consent agenda, which included:
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to schedule a special City Council Meeting for July 24th with the Hospital Board.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
1st Reading-Ordinance No. 29-08. First reading was held on Ordinance No. 29-08:
Ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention. Public Hearing: July 8, 2008
2nd Reading-Ordinance No. 28-08. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bartley, to
approve 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 47-08-Sidewalk Necessity. A public hearing was held on Resolution No.
47-08, Determining the Necessity of Repairing or Installing Sidewalks in the City of Brookings
at the Expense of Abutting Property Owners, 2008-01SWR Sidewalk Repair Project. A motion
was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to approve. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
68
Resolution No. 47-08
Resolution Determining the Necessity Of Repairing
Or Installing Sidewalks in the City Of Brookings
At The Expense Of Abutting Property Owners
2008-01SWR Sidewalk Repair Project
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows:
1) It is hereby determined that sidewalk repairs or installation is necessary abutting the parcels
and lots of land in the City described in the Notice to Property Owners attached to this
Resolution and marked as 2008-01SWR Sidewalk Repair Project.
2) Such sidewalks shall be to the width and of the materials prescribed by Section 605
“Sidewalks” and Section 701.3-16 of Ordinance No. 532 entitled “An Ordinance Providing
Rules, Regulations and Standards to Guide Land Sub-division in the City of Brookings and
Within Three Miles of the City Limits Thereof” and to the grade and in accordance with the
Plans and Specifications prepared in the office of the City Engineer.
3) The City Clerk has caused a copy of the Resolution and a Notice to Property Owners to be
mailed to each property owner by certified mail.
Resolution No. 50-08–Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by
Brunner, to approve Resolution No. 50-08, Resolution authorizing Change Order #2 (CCO#2)
for 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 50-08
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #2 (CCO#2) 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 2: Adjust
estimated the bid contract to omit the following bid items at the appropriate bid prices for a
total decrease of $50,200.00 to the contract: Bid Item A9 (Construction Staking and Control),
Bid Item A10 (Testing & Inspection Services), Bid Item B10 (Remove Storefront Awning), and
Bid Item C7 (Bicycle Bollard).
Resolution No. 48-08-Annexation. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to
approve Resolution No. 48-08, a resolution to annex approximately 7 acres of land into the
City of Brookings (Outlot A in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W). All
present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 48-08 - Annexation
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings is authorized pursuant to South Dakota Codified Law
9-4-1 to annex contiguous territory upon receipt of a written petition, describing said
territory sought to be annexed, signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal
voters and by the owner or owners of not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of said
territory, and
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings desires to annex the following described property, to
wit: Outlot A in the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
69
WHEREAS, The aforesaid land is contiguous to the present boundaries of the City of
Brookings, and
WHEREAS The City of Brookings has received a Petition For Annexation of Territory
signed by the owners of greater than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of the aforesaid
property and there being no legal voters residing in said territory, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the property described
above is hereby annexed to the City of Brookings.
Resolution No. 49-08-Annexation. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to
approve Resolution No. 49-08, a resolution to annex approximately 12 acres into the city of
Brookings (the west 390 feet of the east 1,040 feet of the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 1-
T109N-R50W). All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 49-08 - Annexation
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings is authorized pursuant to South Dakota Codified Law
9-4-1 to annex contiguous territory upon receipt of a written petition, describing said
territory sought to be annexed, signed by not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal
voters and by the owner or owners of not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of said
territory, and
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings desires to annex the following described property, to
wit:
The west 390 feet of the east 1,040 feet of the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 1-T109N-
R50W
WHEREAS, The aforesaid land is contiguous to the present boundaries of the City of
Brookings, and
WHEREAS The City of Brookings has received a Petition For Annexation of Territory
signed by the owners of greater than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of the aforesaid
property and there being no legal voters residing in said territory, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the property described
above is hereby annexed to the City of Brookings.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present
voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
70
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action to authorize the city manager to sign a Joint
Powers Agreement for Police Assistance between the
City of Brookings and Brookings County.
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: City Manager Jeff Weldon
RE: Joint Powers Agreement for Law Enforcement
Attached is a joint powers agreement between the City of Brookings and Brookings
County and the respective law enforcement agencies for purposes of law enforcement.
Such joint powers agreements are authorized by South Dakota Codified Law and law
enforcement is among the most common types of agreements. We have had such an
agreement with Brookings County for some time and this simply renews it. There may
be some minor language changes but the content is virtually the same.
This agreement was inadvertently signed by me on behalf of the City a few months ago
and it was brought to my attention that such a document needs governing body
approval and not just administrative approval. For this reason, it is before you now.
The County Board has already approved it.
Staff recommends your approval.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
71
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE
WHEREAS the City of Brookings, South Dakota operates a full-time police department
and Brookings County, South Dakota operates a full-time sheriff’s department within their
respective jurisdictions;
WHEREAS from time-to-time it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of
Brookings and Brookings County, that the law enforcement officers of the separate jurisdictions
be able to provide mutual aid and assistance to each other while continuing to exercise the
authority of a law enforcement officer.
NOW THEREFORE GE IT RESOLVED AND AGREED that the City of Brookings, by
and through its City Council, and Brookings County, by and through its Board of County
Commissioners, jointly acting pursuant to the procedures set out in SDCL Ch. 1-24, do hereby
jointly agree as follows:
MUTUAL AID
Any police officer of the City of Brookings, or the Brookings County Sheriff, or any of
his Deputies (herein referred to as the “Requesting Entity”), or the police dispatcher providing
dispatch services for either entity, when acting within the scope of employment, may summon
the aid of one or more officers from the other entity (hereinafter referred to as the
“Responding Entity”) to assist in the carrying out of official duties. When so summoned, any
officer from the Responding Entity becomes a duly authorized and empowered police officer of
the Requesting Entity.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
72
MUTUAL OATH
Each law enforcement officer in both Entities shall execute an additional notarized Oath
of Office providing as follows:
I, (Name of Officer), do solemnly swear that I will
support the Constitution and the Law of the State of
South Dakota, the duly enacted Ordinances of
(the City of Brookings) (Brookings County), and when
properly summoned, pursuant to the City of Brookings/
Brookings County Joint Powers Agreement for
Police Assistance, the duly enacted Ordinances of
(Brookings County) (the City of Brookings), and
that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office.
_________________________
Signature of Officer
LIABILITY
Each Entity shall be responsible for any liability incurred by its own officer of officers,
acting within the scope of their employment, whether acting on behalf of the Requesting Entity
or the Responding Entity.
CHAIN OF COMMAND
The senior officer of the Requesting Entity shall be the officer in charge at any crime
scene of other disturbance to which the Responding Entity is called or dispatched.
COST ALLOCATION
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
73
The Responding Entity will bear responsibility for equipment loss, uniforms, wages,
overtime, and other similar costs as though and in the same manner as if the officers dispatched
under this Agreement were performing duties within the Responding Entity’s jurisdictional area.
ADMINISTRATION
No separate administrative entity is established by this Agreement. In the event either
party wishes to discuss any provision of the Agreement, it shall notify the Brookings City
Manager or the Brookings County Auditor and it shall be placed on the agenda for the next
meeting. Either governing board may request a joint special meeting of the governing boards
should it so desire. It is not intended that any additional property be acquired and held jointly
between the parties.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of approval and shall continue unless
and until terminated by one (1) of the Entities, which shall give at least thirty (30) days written
notice of said termination to the other Entity. This agreement is deemed renewed annually
unless terminated as provided herein.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Joint Powers Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between parities on this
subject and shall be authorized and approved by the governing body of each Entity. This
Agreement may be modified only in writing signed by both parties.
Dated this _______ day of _________________, 2008
THE CITY OF BROOKINGS
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
74
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Bryan Gums, Brookings Police Chief
BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________
Brookings County Auditor Chairperson
Board of County Commissioners
By: _____________________________
Brookings County Sheriff
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
75
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action on Resolution No. 55-08, correcting Resolution
No. 48-08, a resolution to annex approximately 7 acres of
land into the City of Brookings (Outlot A in the NE ¼ of
the NW ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W) adopted on June
24, 2008.
The City Council approved Resolution No. 48-08 on June 24th. However, an
error was detected and the City Clerk recommended Council action to note
the correction on this annexation. The City Attorney has agreed with this
finding. Enclosed Res. 55-08 highlights the correction.
RESOLUTION NO. 55-08 - ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings is authorized pursuant to South Dakota Codified Law 9-4-1 to annex
contiguous territory upon receipt of a written petition, describing said territory sought to be annexed, signed by
not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal voters and by the owner or owners of not less than three-fourths
(3/4) of the value of said territory, and
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings desires to annex the following described property, to wit: Outlot A in the NE
¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 3-T109N-R50W
WHEREAS, The aforesaid land is contiguous to the present boundaries of the City of Brookings, and
WHEREAS The City of Brookings has received a Petition For Annexation of Territory signed by the owners of
greater than three-fourths (3/4) of the value of the aforesaid property and there being no legal voters by not
less than three-fourths (3/4) of the legal voters residing in said territory, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED By the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the property described above is hereby annexed to
the City of Brookings.
Dated this 8th day of July 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
___________________________
ATTEST: Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
76
Applicant: Dorothy E. Nelson
Proposal: Annex approximately seven (7) acres of land into the City of Brookings
Background: This outlot was platted in 1966. The outlot slopes dramatically to the west and
eventually reaches an elevation that matches the east edge of the Big Sioux River Floodplain.
There are currently two (2) primary structures on the acreage. A single-family home
exists on the east side and a building that was used as a retail business for approximately 23
years it toward the west side.
Adjacent uses include the Nelson Addition to the north. This is a nine (9) lot subdivision
zoned for single-family homes. The lots range in size from two (2) to five (5) acres. There is
also a newer residence that was constructed just south of Outlot A in the mid to late 1990s.
The owners of this residence own the surrounding farmland to the south and west. Valley View
Second Addition, a future subdivision on the City of Brookings, is adjacent to Outlot A on the
east side. This land was annexed into the city in 2006.
Specifics: A primary objective of our Vision 2020 Annexation Plan was to create a more
compact and efficient development pattern. The trick is to pursue that objective while
maintaining an adequate supply of land.
The City has annexed about 280 residential acres since 2000. About the same number
of residential acres has been developed during that time period.
The parcel meets the test for annexation since it is abutting the current city limits along
its entire east side. The land is outside the anticipated development area of the Vision 2020 Plan
but is within the estimated maximum build out in this location.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 5 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of
the annexation.
State Law reference
9-4-1. Annexation of territory on petition by voters and landowners. The governing body of a
municipality, upon receipt of a written petition describing the boundaries of any territory
contiguous to that municipality sought to be annexed to that municipality, may by resolution
include such territory or any part thereof within such municipality if the petition is signed by
not less than three-fourths of the registered voters and by the owners of not less than three-
fourths of the value of the territory sought to be annexed to the municipality.
For purposes of this section, "contiguous" includes territory separated from the municipality
by reason of intervening ownership of land used as a golf course or any land owned by the State
of South Dakota or any subdivisions thereof.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
77
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action on a request from First Lutheran Church to abate
a portion of the 2007 property taxes in the amount of
$1,046.86 for property located OL “R” of Section 23-110-
50, also known as 408 8th Street. County Assessor
recommends approval.
First Lutheran Church has submitted a request to abate a portion of the 2008 property
taxes on the above referenced property in the amount of $1046.86. A copy of the
application is enclosed. The County Director of Equalization recommends approval.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
83
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action to appoint Didem Koroglu to the Visitor
Promotions Committee.
Mayor Munsterman has recommended the appointment of Didem Koroglu to the
Visitor Promotions Committee.
Membership
Membership: 11 (representing the following entities):
• 5 citizen-at-large
• 3 SDSU Student Association
• 1 Chamber of Commerce
• 1 Downtown Brookings, Inc.
• 1 Swiftel Center Advisory Committee
Term: 3 years (limit of 2 full terms)
Residency: Not Required
Purpose: The Visitor Promotions Committee was created to attract out of town visitors for
events with economic impact and to attract attention and the expenditures of out of
town visitors to the City of Brookings and surrounding area and the VPC shall also
provide marketing counsel and advice to the Director of the Brookings Area
Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Brookings Area Chamber of Commerce Board
of Directors.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
84
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4G. Action to appoint Penny Hauffe to the Human Rights
Committee.
Mayor Munsterman has recommended the appointment of Penny Hauffe to the Human
Rights Committee. Hauffe will fill the unexpired term of Kristin Asche.
Membership
Membership: 10 (9 City, 1 County)
Term: 3 years (1 year term for student position)
Residency: Not Required
Purpose: The Human Rights Committee has the power to investigate alleging discrimination.
Other programs include:
• The study of the existence, character, causes and extent of discrimination in
employment, housing and public accommodations, property rights, education
and public services.
• Advise and provide a forum for those subjected to unfair and discriminatory
practices in the City and County.
• Advise City officials concerning issues of discrimination.
• Conducting educational programs and disseminates information to further the
committee’s policy to eliminate discrimination in the city.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
85
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4H. Action on Resolution No. 51-08, Awarding Bids for the
2008-09STI Riogrand, Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley &
Cumberland Court Street Project.
This project entails the construction of streets in the Valley View Addition, located on
the southern part of Brookings adjacent to 20th Street South. This is a TIFF project
which includes water mains and services, sanitary sewer mains and services, storm
sewer, grading, detention pond, gravel, curb & gutter and asphalt paving. This project is
the first phase of construction for this development and the streets included in the bid
letting are portions of Rio Grand Avenue, Napa Valley Street, Sonoma Valley Street and
Cumberland Court. The project has been bid with two contracts, one called
“GRADING” which includes water mains and services, sanitary sewer mains and
services, storm sewer, grading, detention pond, gravel and curb & gutter and one called
“PAVING” which includes the asphalt paving work.
The plans were mailed to several area contractors and 2 builders exchanges. The bid
letting was held on July 1, 2008 and the City received the following bids:
GRADING:
Rounds Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $523,912.61
Prunty Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $528,432.55
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $548,907.32
PAVING:
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $ 65,109.94
The low Grading bid was approximately 26% lower than the engineer’s estimate
(Banners Associates) of $715,978.20. The low Paving bid was approximately 9% lower
than the engineer’s estimate (Banners Associates) of $71,565.00. Recommend awarding
the grading contract in the amount of $523,912.61 to Rounds Construction Co., Inc.
and awarding the paving contract in the amount of $65,109.94 to Bowes Construction,
Inc.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
86
Resolution No. 51–08
Resolution Awarding Bids on Project 2008-09STI
Rio Grand Ave., Napa Valley St., Sonoma Valley St., & Cumberland Ct. Phase I
Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Project 2008-09STI Rio Grand Ave., Napa
Valley St., Sonoma Valley St., & Cumberland Ct., Phase I Project on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at
1:30 pm at Brookings City Hall; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for 2008-09STI Rio Grand Ave.,
Napa Valley St., Sonoma Valley St., & Cumberland Ct., Phase I Project (GRADING):
Rounds Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $523,912.61
Prunty Construction Co., Inc., Brookings, SD $528,432.55
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $548,907.32
And Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for 2008-09STI Rio Grand
Ave., Napa Valley St., Sonoma Valley St., & Cumberland Ct., Phase I Project (PAVING):
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $65,109.94
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Rounds Construction Co., Inc., Brookings,
SD of $532,912.61 for the GRADING project be accepted and the low bid of Bowes
Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD of $65,109.94 for the PAVING project be accepted.
Passed and approved this 8th day of July 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
87
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4I. Action On Resolution No. 52-08, Awarding Bids for the
2008-04STA Alley Assessment Project.
The Brookings City Council approved Resolution of Necessity 39-08 on May 27th, 2008,
authorizing the City to proceed with bidding for an alley assessment project. This
project consists of two alleys located between 6th Street and 7th Street, and 7th Avenue
and 8th Avenue. The alleys located between these streets are situated in a “T” fashion,
with one alley running north and south, and one alley running east and west.
The plans for this project were mailed to area contractors and 2 builders exchanges.
The bid letting was held on July 1, 2008 and the City received the following bids:
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $37,916.55
The low base bid was approximately 1% higher than the engineer’s estimate of
$37,225.00. This bid equates to a frontage assessment of approximately $36.21 per
front foot, which is based upon the bid cost plus 6% engineering and administration fee
divided by 1110 frontage feet. The entire cost of this project will be assessed to the
abutting property owners after the project is complete and the exact amount to be
assessed will be slightly different than $36.21 per front foot.
Resolution 39-08 stated that the estimated cost per front foot of alley was $35.00. A
notice was mailed to the abutting property owners by first class mail to alert them the
bid was slightly higher than the estimate, and the notice included the date of the Council
Meeting to award the bids. The property owners do have the option of paying the
assessment over a 5 year period with interest of 10% on the unpaid balance.
Recommend awarding this project to Bowes Construction, Inc., in the amount of
$37,916.55.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
88
Resolution No. 52–08
Resolution Awarding Bids on Project 2008-04STA
Alley Assessment Project
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, July 1, 2008; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Project
2008-04STA Alley Assessment Project:
Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD $37,916.65
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD of
$37,916.65 be accepted.
Passed and approved this 8th day of July 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
89
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4J. Action on Resolution No. 54-08, for vacation of utility
easement on Lot 2, Block 3, Oyloes Addition.
There is an existing utility easement located on the West five feet of the East Half of Lot
2, Block 3, of Oyloes Addition, located in the SW ¼ of Section 23, T110N, R50W. This
easement was acquired by Swiftel Communications to install fiber optic cable to the
home along the west property line. After the easement had been filed, the property
owner requested that Swiftel Communications vacate the easement. The property
owner is planning to build a garage on the west side of their property and a portion of
the garage would be on the utility easement. Swiftel Communications have agreed to
the easement, and they will install their fiber cable at a different location. All affected
utility representatives have signed the vacation of easement form. This resolution will
vacate this utility easement.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
90
Prepared By:
Brookings Engineering Dept.
Post Office Box 270
Brookings, SD 57006
Resolution No. 54-08
Vacation of Easement of Lot 2, Block 3, Oyloes Addition
BE IF RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings has been granted a certain utility easement on Lot 2, Block 3,
Oyloes Addition by virtue of Easement dated April 1, 2008 and filed on April 11, 2008, in
Miscellaneous Book 178 on Page 968, and
WHEREAS the owners of the aforementioned real property have petitioned the City of
Brookings to vacate the previously granted utility easement, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings that
the utility easement located on the West five feet (W 5’) of the East Half (E ½) of Lot, 2, Block
3, of Oyloes Addition to the City of Brookings in the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section
23, T110N, R50W be vacated.
FURTHERMORE, that a copy of this resolution be filed with the Brookings County Register of
Deeds, and that said Register of Deeds be requested to mark upon the above referenced
easement in Miscellaneous Book 178 on Page 968, and the vacating of said easement and note
reference to the proper miscellaneous record.
Passed and approved this 8th day of July, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
91
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. INVITATION FOR A CITIZEN TO SCHEDULE TIME
ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR AN ISSUE NOT
LISTED.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
6. SDSU REPORT.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
92
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
7. Mayoral Proclamations:
Mayor Scott Munsterman has made the following Mayoral
Proclamations in the month of July:
None at this time.
** Enclosed for information purposes – no presentations are scheduled at the meeting.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
93
Public Hearings & Ordinances:
8. Public hearing and action on a housing moving request
from Shaun and Jamie Hof to move a Governor’s House
from Springfield, SD, to Lot 33 and 33A, Meyer’s Second
Addition in the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 11-T109N-
R50W, also known as 306 Hawaii Drive.
Applicant: Shaun and Jamie Hof
Proposal: Move a “Governor’s House” from Springfield Prison to Meyer’s Second
Addition.
Background: This subdivision was originally planned as a 40-acre development.
However, only a portion of the land has been platted along the western edge. A total of
twenty-two homes have been approved through the building permit process. Seventeen
have been moved in and five have been built on-site.
Specifics: This home is similar in design to other homes in the subdivision. The
applicant will have a driveway along the east side of the house and there would be
room for a future garage. The site plan indicates compliance with the required building
setbacks for the R-1B District.
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
City Manager Recommendation - Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
109
Public Hearings & Ordinances:
9. Ordinance No. 29-08: Ordinance amending Article II of
Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention.
Proposal: Update certain standards for the special flood hazard areas within the city
Background: The original flood damage prevention regulations were adopted by the city
in 1978 based on the Flood Insurance Study done at that time. Over the years minor
changes in terminology were implemented and recodification resulted in some
formatting changes.
Specifics: These revisions are taken from Paragraph 60.3(d) of the National Flood
Insurance Program regulations. They have been modified slightly to exceed the federal
minimums by requiring certain construction to be elevated to one foot or more above
the base flood elevation. The city also implemented the stricter regulations in 1978.
The amendments also reference the new dates for the Flood Insurance Study and
accompanying maps that are part of this ordinance.
Action: Open and close public hearing, motion to approve, roll call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
110
Ordinance No. 29-08
An ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Brookings and pertaining to Flood Damage Prevention
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota: that Article II of
Chapter 38 of the Code of Ordinances shall be amended as follows:
Sec. 38-31. Definitions
Administrator means the Federal Insurance Administrator.
Sec. 38-38. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard.
The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
in a scientific and engineering report entitled, "The Flood Insurance Study for Brookings
County, the City of Brookings, South Dakota and incorporated areas," dated July 16, 2008 April
1978, with the an accompanying flood insurance rate maps (FIRM). This study and
accompanying maps are is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this article. The
flood insurance study and FIRM are on file at the city engineer's office, 311 Third Avenue,
Brookings, South Dakota.
(Code 1996, § 15-7)
Section 38-82. Specific Standards
A. When the Administrator has provided a notice of final flood elevations for one or more
special flood hazard areas on the community’s FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated other
special flood hazard areas without base flood elevations on the community’s FIRM, but has not
identified a regulatory floodway or coastal high hazard area, the community shall:
(1) Require the standards of Section 60.3(b) of the current NFIP regulations (44 CFR Parts 59-
78) within all A1-30 zones, AE zones, A zones, AH zones, and AO zones, on the community’s
FIRM;
(2) Require that all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures
within Zones A1-30, AE, and AH zones on the community’s FIRM have the lowest floor
(including basement) elevated to one foot or more above the base flood level, unless the
community is granted an exception by the Administrator for the allowance of basements in
accordance with section 60.6(b) or (c) of the current NFIP regulations (44 CFR Parts 59-78);
(3) Require that all new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures
within Zones A1-30, AE, and AH zones on the community’s firm (i) have the lowest floor
(including basement) elevated to one foot or more above the base flood level, or (ii) together
with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base flood level the
structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
111
structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
effects of buoyancy;
(4) Provide that where a non-residential structure is intended to be made watertight below the
base flood level, (i) a registered professional engineer of architect shall develop and/or review
structural design, specifications, and plans for the construction, and shall certify that the design
and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting
the applicable provisions of A. (3)(ii) or A. (8)(ii) of this section, and (ii) a record of such
certificates which includes the specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such
structures are floodproofed shall be maintained for public inspection and furnished upon
request, for the determination of applicable flood insurance risk premium rates within all areas
having special flood hazards identified on a FHBM or FIRM, any certificates of floodproofing, and
information on the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the level of the lowest floor
(including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and include whether or
not such structures contain a basement, and if the structure has been floodproofed, the
elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed;
(5) Require, for all new construction and substantial improvements, that fully enclosed areas
below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage
in an area other than a basement and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and
exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom of all openings
shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers,
valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of
floodwaters.
(6) Require that manufactured homes that are placed or substantially improved within Zones
A1-30, AH, and AE on the community’s FIRM on sites
(i) Outside of a manufactured home park or subdivision,
(ii) In a new manufactured home park of subdivision,
(iii) In an expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, or
(iv) In an existing manufactured home park or subdivision on which a manufactured
home has incurred “substantial damage” as the result of a flood, be elevated on a
permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is
elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system to resist floatation collapse and lateral
movement.
(7) Require within any AO zone on the community’s FIRM that all new construction and
substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest floor (including basement)
elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet
on the community’s FIRM (at lease two feet if no depth number is specified);
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
112
(8) Require within any AO zone on the community’s FIRM that all new construction and
substantial improvements of nonresidential improvements of nonresidential structures (i) have
the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least as high
as the depth number specified in feet on the community’s FIRM (at least two feet if no depth
number is specified), or (ii) together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely
floodproofed to that level to meet the flood proofing standard specified in A. (3)(ii);
(9) Require within any A99 zones on a community’s FIRM the standards of Section 60.3(a)(1)
through (a)(4)(i) and (b)(5) through (b)(9) of the current NFIP regulations (44 CFR parts 59-
78).
(10) Require until a regulatory floodway is designated, that no new construction, substantial
improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and
AE on the community’s FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the
proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development,
will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point
within the community.
(11) Require within Zones AH and AO, adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes,
to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
(12) Require that manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an
existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the
community’s FIRM that are not subject to the provisions of section A. (6) be elevated so that
either
(i) The lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the base flood elevation,
or
(ii) The manufactured home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other
foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in
height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation
system to resist floatation, collapse, and lateral movement.
(13) Notwithstanding any other provisions of Section 38-82, a community may approve certain
development in Zones A1-30, AE, and AH, on the community’s FIRM which increase the water
surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot, provided that the community first
applies for a conditional FIRM revision, fulfills the requirements for such a revision as
established under the provisions of §65.12 of the current NFIP regulations (44 CFR parts 59-
78), and receives the approval of the Administrator.
(14) Require that recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones A1-30, AH, and AE on the
community’s FIRM either
(i) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days,
(ii) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or
(iii) Meet the permit requirements of section 60.3(b)(1) of the current NFIP
regulations (44 CFR parts 59-78) and the elevation and anchoring requirements
for “manufactured homes” in A. (6).
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
113
A. Recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is
attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no
permanently attached additions.
B. When the Administrator has provided a notice of final base flood elevations within Zones
A1-30 and/or AE on the community’s FIRM and, if appropriate, has designated AO zones, AH
zones, A99 zones, and A zones on the community’s FIRM, and has provided data from which
the community shall designate its regulatory floodway, the community shall:
(1) Meet the requirements of A. (1) through A. (14);
(2) Select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on the principle that the area chosen for the
regulatory floodway must be designed to carry the waters of the base flood, without increasing
the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point;
(3) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated
through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering
practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within
the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge;
(4) Notwithstanding any other provisions of section 38-82, a community may permit
encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway that would result in an increase in base
flood elevations, provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway
revision, fulfills the requirements for such revisions as established under the provisions of
§65.12 of the current NFIP regulations (44 CFR Parts 59-78) and receives the approval of the
Administrator.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: June 24, 2008
SECOND READING: July 8, 2008
PUBLISHED: July 11, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SD
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
114
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
10. Action on Resolution No. 56-08, establishing a fee and
process for Temporary Off-Sale Package Wine Licenses
within the city of Brookings.
Agenda items 10, 11, and 12 are in response to a request received on June 26th from Jim
and Nancy Schade, on behalf of the South Dakota Winegrowers. A copy of that
request is included under Item #11.
One of the new bills passed in this session was HB1118, will permit special OFF-SALE
package wine dealer’s licenses. This new law allows for city’s to issue a special license
to permit the sale of OFF-SALE wine, but only wine that was manufactured by a farm
winery within the State of South Dakota.
The South Dakota Winegrowers have rented a booth outside the Arts Festival grounds
and would like to sell bottles of South Dakota wine.
Resolution No. 56-08 would establish the fee for this new license. City Attorney
Britzman drafted the resolution.
Note that this issue has not been discussed by the special Liquor Ad Hoc Committee.
Action: Motion to approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation – Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
115
RESOLUTION NO. 56-08
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE AND FEE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
TEMPORARY OFF-SALE PACKAGE WINE LICENSES IN THE CITY OF BROOKINGS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota as
follows:
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota has authorized municipalities to issue temporary off-
sale package wine licenses for fair boards, and public, civic, charitable, educational and fraternal
organizations pursuant to House Bill 1118, and
WHEREAS, the temporary license may be issued only if the licensee sells wine manufactured
by a farm winery licensed pursuant to SDCL Chapter 35-12, and for periods of time not
exceeding fifteen consecutive days, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized to determine the fee for this license, which may
not exceed fifty dollars per day,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the fee for temporary off-sale package wine
licenses shall be fifty dollars per day.
Passed and approved on the 8th day of July, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS:
ATTEST: Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
116
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
11. Public hearing and action on a Temporary OFF-Sale
Package Wine License for the South Dakota
Winegrowers Association on July 12 and 13 at Old Liquor
Store location (adjacent to Brookings Arts Festival).
On June 26, 2008, the Mayor received a written request from Jim and Nancy Schade, on
behalf the SD Winegrowers Association to sell wine during the Brookings Summer Arts
Festival on July 12 and 13 pursuant to the new state law (HB 1118). A copy of that
request is enclosed.
One of the new bills passed in this session was HB1118, will permit special OFF-SALE
package wine dealer’s licenses. This new law allows for cities to issue a special license
to permit the sale of OFF-SALE wine, but only wine that was manufactured by a farm
winery within the State of South Dakota.
The South Dakota Winegrowers have rented a booth outside the Arts Festival grounds
and would like to sell bottles of South Dakota wine. They would also like to offer
samples of wine. That issue is addressed under Agenda Item #12.
Since this is a new law, the question was raised if the City needed to pass an ordinance
before it could issue a license under this change in state law. Officials from the State
Department of Revenue and Special Licensing and the City Attorney reviewed this issue
and concluded that an ordinance is not needed.
A legal notice seven days prior to the council meeting is required to give public notice.
A copy of the notice is enclosed. A public hearing and council action is required to
issue this license.
State officials and the City Attorney have also concluded that the SD Winegrowers
Association is a qualifying entity under this new law. To qualify, the license must be
applied for by a fair board or a public, civic, charitable, educational or fraternal
organization in conjunction with a special event.
With regards to Sunday Sales, the City Attorney and staff have concluded that sale of
off-sale wine would be permitted under current city ordinances.
The bigger issue relates to the Winegrower’s desire to offer samples, which will be
addressed under a separate license request in Item #12.
Note that this issue has not been discussed by the special Liquor Ad Hoc Committee.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
119
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Brookings City Council in and for the City
of Brookings, South Dakota, on the 8th day of July, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 311 Third Avenue, City of Brookings, will meet in regular
session to consider the following alcoholic beverage licenses: Temporary Off-Sale
Package Wine License and a Temporary On-Sale Wine Retailers License for the
South Dakota Winegrowers Association on July 12 and 13 at Old Liquor Store
location (adjacent to Brookings Arts Festival).
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any person, persons of the attorney, may
appear and be heard at said scheduled public hearing who are interested in the
approval or rejection of any such application.
Dated at Brookings, South Dakota, this 30th day of June, 2008.
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
120
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
12. Public hearing and action on Temporary ON-Sale Wine
Retailers License for the South Dakota Winegrowers
Association on July 12 and 13 at Old Liquor Store
location (adjacent to Brookings Arts Festival).
As noted under Item #11, Jim and Nancy Schade, on behalf the SD Winegrowers
Association, have applied to sell off-sale wine during the Brookings Summer Arts Festival
on July 12 and 13 pursuant to the new state law (HB 1118). The South Dakota
Winegrowers have rented a booth outside the Arts Festival grounds and would like to
sell bottles of South Dakota made wine. They would also like to offer samples of wine.
The following is the state law related to samples:
35‐4‐10.2. Off‐sale licensees permitted to provide free samples‐‐No additional license required‐‐
Restrictions‐‐Violation as misdemeanor. A licensee holding a license pursuant to subdivision 35‐4‐
2(3) or (5) may provide samples of malt beverages, wine, distilled spirits, liqueurs, and cordials to
the general public without obtaining an additional license. The licensee may only offer as samples
the malt beverages, wine, distilled spirits, liqueurs, and cordials that the licensee currently has in
stock and is offering for sale to the general public. The malt beverage, wine, distilled spirits,
liqueur, and cordial samples shall be dispensed at no charge and shall be consumed on the licensed
premises during the permitted hours of off‐sale. No sample of malt beverage may be larger than
three fluid ounces. No sample of wine may be larger than fifty milliliters and no sample of distilled
spirits, liqueur, or cordial may be larger than twenty‐five milliliters. No more than one variety of
malt beverage, one variety of wine, and one variety of distilled spirits, liqueur, or cordial may be
offered for sampling in any one day. No more than one sample of malt beverage, no more than one
sample of wine, and no more than one sample of distilled spirits, liqueur, or cordial may be offered
or dispensed to any individual. No malt beverage, wine, distilled spirits, liqueur, or cordial may be
offered for sampling on any Sunday. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.Source:
SL 1989, ch 317; SL 1998, ch 220, § 1.
The State Department of Revenue and City staff have concluded that samples can not
be offered without an ON-SALE license, permanent or temporary. That is why the SD
Winegrowers Association are also applying for a Temporary ON-SALE Wine Retailers
License in order to offer samples of the wine.
35‐4‐11.4. Special malt beverage retailersʹ license‐‐Special retail on‐sale wine‐dealersʹ license‐‐
Maximum period of validity‐‐Necessary security for street dance. Any municipality or county may
issue a special malt beverage retailersʹ license and a special retail on‐sale wine dealersʹ license to
any civic, charitable, educational, or fraternal organization in conjunction with a special event
within the municipality or within the county. Educational does not include any elementary,
secondary, or higher educational institution in the public school system of this state. Any license
issued pursuant to this section may be issued for a period of time established by the municipal
governing body or board of county commissioners. However, such period may not exceed fifteen
consecutive days. If an organization receiving a license pursuant to this section conducts a street
dance in conjunction with the special event, the organization shall provide qualified security
personnel as deemed necessary by the governing body which issued the license to maintain order
during the street dance.
Source: SL 1987, ch 261, § 37; SL 1991, ch 297; SL 1999, ch 185, § 1.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
121
Note that the final determination that this license would be required was not reached
until July 2nd. The Schades have been contacted to fill out a Temporary Malt & Wine
Beverage License Application and a copy of that application will be provided to the City
Council by separate mailing. That application will provide details as to the booth
location and dimensions along with the process to handle the alcohol.
The qualifying applicant categories for the ON-SALE license are not the same, but the
City Attorney has concluded the SD Winegrowers Association would qualify.
With regards to Sunday Sales, City Clerk Shari Thornes posed the following comments
and questions:
The special malt beverage retailers' license and a special retail on-sale wine dealers'
license also has the same language related to 15 days.
These special licenses are not addressed in the Sunday sales ordinance and I don’t
see where they would be prohibited. The ordinance states “(e) Except as permitted
in this section, no person within the city shall sell, offer for sale, serve or allow to be
consumed on the premises covered by a state license any alcoholic beverages on
Sunday. However, these are special city issued licenses and are not issued by the
state.
It maybe should be noted that the on-sale wine licenses automatically become on &
off sale wine effective July 1st and the restaurant restrictions have been removed.
We probably need to amend the Sunday Sales Ordinance to comply with this
change.
(b) Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this chapter, any owner or
operator of a restaurant which holds a license as an on-sale dealer in wine for Sunday
under SDCL 35-4-2(12) may sell, serve and allow to be consumed on the premises
covered by the license, the beverages permitted by such license, between 12:00 p.m. and
12:00 a.m. midnight on Sunday with the serving of food. The term “restaurant” as used
in this section shall mean only a room regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept
open for the serving of meals to guests for compensation which has suitable table
accommodations for at least 50 guests therein at one and the same time, and a kitchen
connected therewith containing conveniences for cooking sufficient to provide meals in
a bona fide manner for 50 guests at one and the same time.
However, the City Attorney is uncertain if samples can be permitted on Sunday under
the City’s current ordinance. Britzman made the following statements:
EMAIL Dated 7/2/08 “….When it comes to serving samples on Sunday, it seems that unless Ord
05-06 would permit such activity, that providing samples on Sunday may not be consistent with
our ordinance. I will not have time to think about this further until next Thursday, and I would not
close the door on Sunday sales if I am missing something, but I don’t think it matters what type of
license they are utilizing, if there is not an exception to 05-06 it would seem samples are not
contemplated within the Sunday sales ordinance.
I agree with the changes needed to be made to Subsection (b) to remove the restaurant
requirements and perhaps we need to make another exception in the Sunday sales ordinance or
temporary licenses like the issue discussed above.”
EMAIL dated 7/2/08: “The Sunday sales ordinance is primarily an on-sale prohibition, with just a
small section for malt beverages covered. I agree the State permits the sale of wine under this
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
122
license on Sundays, and so off-sale under the temporary license is distinguishable from the intent
of the last section to clearly prohibit or restrict Sunday on-sales, since State law generally covers
off-sale on Sundays.”
Further evaluation by the Attorney is needed on the Sunday issue. City Council
discussion and input on the issue is also needed.
It should also be noted, unless other clarifications are made, this on-sale license would
permit for an on-sale “wine tent” across the street from the Arts Festival in where wine
could be consumed on premises with regular sized glasses, unless specifically prohibited.
A representative of the SD Winegrowers Association will be at the City Council
meeting to give a presentation and respond to questions.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
123
ORDINANCE NO. 05-06
An Ordinance Amending Section 6-4 Of The Revised Ordinances Of The
City Of Brookings And Pertaining To The Sale Of Alcoholic Beverages On Sunday
In The City Of Brookings.
Be It Ordained And Enacted By The Council Of The City Of Brookings, State Of South Dakota,
As Follows:
I.
Sec. 6-4. Sunday sales permitted by the holders of operating agreements, light
wine licenses, the municipal off-sale licensee and off-sale malt beverage licensees.
(a) Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this chapter, any holder of an operating
agreement may sell, serve and allow to be consumed on the premises covered by their
operating agreement, alcoholic beverages between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
midnight on Sunday with the serving of food where the holder of the operating agreement who
applies for a Sunday sales permit has facilities for the serving of prepared meals from a fixed
restaurant with the simultaneous seating capacity of at least 50 patrons.
(b) Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this chapter, any owner or operator of a
restaurant which holds a license as an on-sale dealer in wine for Sunday under SDCL 35-4-2(12)
may sell, serve and allow to be consumed on the premises covered by the license, the
beverages permitted by such license, between 12:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight on Sunday
with the serving of food. The term “restaurant” as used in this section shall mean only a room
regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kept open for the serving of meals to guests for
compensation which has suitable table accommodations for at least 50 guests therein at one
and the same time, and a kitchen connected therewith containing conveniences for cooking
sufficient to provide meals in a bona fide manner for 50 guests at one and the same time.
(c) Notwithstanding any of the other provisions of this chapter, any holder of retail malt
beverage license may sell, serve and allow to be consumed on the premises covered by their
license, malt beverages between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight on Sunday
(d) The municipal off-sale licensee and licensed off-sale malt beverage retailers may sell or
allow to be sold malt beverages on Sunday after 7:00 o’clock a.m. for consumption off the
premises where sold.
(e) Except as permitted in this section, no person within the city shall sell, offer for sale,
serve or allow to be consumed on the premises covered by a state license any alcoholic
beverages on Sunday.
II.
Any or all ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
124
FIRST READING: March 14, 2006
SECOND READING: March 28, 2006
PUBLISHED: March 31, 2006
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
125
Ordinances – 2nd Readings / Public Hearings:
13. Action on Resolution No. 57-08, Resolution authorizing
Change Order #3 (CCO#3), for 2008-03STI, Downtown
Streetscape Project (this change order is for removal of
an unanticipated 2’x3’ steam tunnel in the 500 block of
Main Avenue and the cost will be paid by BMU.)
The 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project entails construction work on Main
Avenue from 6th Street to Front Street, which includes new water and sanitary sewer
mains and services, new sidewalk, light poles, trees, curb & gutter, pavement and other
streetscape amenities.
During the underground utility work, an un-anticipated small concrete steam tunnel
(approximately 2’x3’) was uncovered in the 500 block of Main Avenue. This particular
steam tunnel was located very high in the roadway section, and would have been within
a few inches of the future top of the asphalt roadway. Brookings Municipal Utilities have
proposed a change to the Winter Brothers Underground contract to add the following
work:
• Remove 242 linear feet of small steam tunnel (approximately 2’x3’) and properly
dispose of all materials including abatement contractor for an increase of
$16,940.00 to the contract.
This change order will approve the additional work for the steam tunnel removal in the
500 Block of Main Avenue and adjust the Winter Brothers Underground contract for a
total increase of $16,940.00.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
126
Resolution No. 57-08
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #3 (CCO#3) 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 3: Remove 242
linear feet of small steam tunnel (approximately 2’x3’) and properly dispose of all materials
including abatement contractor for an increase of $16,940 to the contract.
Passed and approved this 8th day of July 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council Agenda Packet – July
July 8, 2008
127
Other Business.
14. Adjourn.