HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008_12_09 CC PKTCity Council Packet
December 9, 2008
1
Brookings City Council
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
311 Third Avenue
5:00 p.m. ~~ Work Session
6:00 p.m. ~~ Council Meeting
Mission Statement
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through
innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items for that particular
meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Tax Increment Financing District Policy Discussion.
2. Discussion Regarding Provisions of Restaurant Liquor Operating Agreements.
3. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
4. Council Invites & Obligations
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. *
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A
motion and second is required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance / Presentation of Colors by Wolf Den Pack 24.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John Deere 544G Loader as
surplus property.
D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney.
E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for accessible parking violation.
F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a house moving hourly fee for
police escort.
G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending Great Lakes as the carrier for
Essential Air Service.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
* Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon by the Council at one time,
without discussion, unless a member of the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items removed
from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items
means that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions described in the agenda supporting
documentation.
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
2
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.
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-
family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Public Hearing: January 13th
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the West 338 feet of the N½ of the
NW¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the South 92 feet thereof, from an
Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A District.
Public Hearing: January 13th
9. Ordinance No. 45-08: An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A
Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For
Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Second Reading: December 16th
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on a lease of real property to private entity - Library Coffee
Shop Contract.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Public hearing and action on annual liquor and wine renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business:
12. Action on Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU for
the SDSU Wellness Center (TABLED ITEM).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action: Request public comment, roll call
13. Action on Larson Ice Center building/parking lot modification project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, Roll Call
14. Report from Brookings Transportation Board.
Informational
15. Discussion regarding City of Brookings acquisition of South Dakota Department of
Transportation property (I-29 & Highway 14).
Action: Motion to reject purchase agreement, request public comment, Roll Call
16. Executive Session for purposes of legal matters.
Action: Motion to enter session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
17. Adjourn.
Brookings City Council
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
3
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.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
4
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
1. Tax Increment Financing District Policy Discussion.
TO: Brookings City Council
FROM: Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Attached is a draft policy for your discussion governing the use of tax increment finance
as an economic development tool. The policy is written strictly within the statutory
parameters of South Dakota Codified Laws. Where SDCL provides latitude for local
government discretion, I have attempted to provide guidelines for its use within that
level of discretionary local authority. This document is the result of policy guidelines
from other communities as well as guidelines that have governed our experiences with
our existing four districts.
As a policy, it is intended to provide guidance and direction in using tax increment but
still leave latitude and flexibility for you to deviate from the document if you determine
particular conditions exist that merit the modification.
The last time this was before you, I described the various sections of the proposed
policy. You indicated you wanted to see it again at a work session.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
5
Policy for the Use of
Tax Increment Finance
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Purpose of this Policy:
This policy is established to outline the City’s position governing the use of tax increment
financing (TIF) as an economic development tool for development. This policy operates within
the parameters of SDCL 11-9 as amended; and shall be used as a guide for considering
applications for its use. The fundamental purpose of tax increment financing in Brookings is to
encourage desirable development or redevelopment that would not otherwise occur but for the
assistance provided through TIF. It shall further be the intent of TIF use to be for the shortest
duration possible to achieve the City’s desired results for the specific project. The City
reserves the right to approve or reject projects on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration established policies, project criteria, existing ordinances, and demand on city
services in relation to the potential benefits from the project. Meeting policy criteria does not
guarantee the award of TIF to the project. Approval or denial of one project is not intended to
set precedent for approval or denial of another project. Each project is unique and must stand
on its own merits.
Section I: Objectives governing the use of TIF
The City will consider using TIF to assist private and public development projects provided
Item (8) in this Section and one additional of the following public purpose objectives are
satisfied.
1) To retain local jobs and/or increase the number and diversity of jobs that offer stable
employment and/or attractive wages and benefits. These jobs should be at the level
sufficient to being considered a living wage/head-of-household income, and be
considered primary jobs.
2) To encourage the redevelopment of deteriorated, contaminated, designated
“brownfield”, or otherwise blighted real property through the investment of TIF
funding; to result in an appreciably higher level of quality redevelopment and private
reinvestment.
3) To stimulate economic development in Brookings by assisting projects that promote the
long term economic vitality of the community; and contributes to the fulfillment of the
City’s development or redevelopment objectives.
4) To stimulate increased private investment in areas that would have otherwise remained
undeveloped or under-developed and which will, in the long term, provide a significant
source of additional tax revenues to all taxing jurisdictions.
5) To encourage additional unsubsidized private development in the area, either directly or
indirectly through “spin-off” development.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
6
6) To stimulate the construction of safe and affordable housing units for low and moderate
income residents and expand the general housing stock. (The latest available housing
plan/survey, and information from South Dakota Housing Development Authority
should be used as the primary guideline for determining affordability levels.)
7) To offset increased costs of redevelopment over and above the costs normally incurred
in development.
8) To facilitate the development process and to achieve development on sites which would
not otherwise be developed BUT FOR the use of TIF. Use of TIF shall be considered a
financing means of last resort as determined by the City Council.
9) To support and assist in the implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
10) To broaden and expand the tax base to the benefit of all taxing jurisdictions.
11) To support redevelopment efforts that enhance and preserve unique urban features
including but not limited to the downtown central business district, historic districts,
entryway features and amenities, and public assembly areas.
12) To the extent permitted by law, tax increment proceeds may be used to finance eligible
city-owned projects and improvements within the district as deemed necessary by the
City Council.
Section II: General guidelines governing the use of TIF
1) The City of Brookings will comply with all requirements of SDCL 11-9 as amended.
The City will undertake a comprehensive analysis to ensure the proposed project
satisfies the “BUT FOR” criteria. The project must demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City Council, that it is not economically feasible without the use of TIF.
2) The City of Brookings will use tax increment financing only when a clearly identified
city development objective is served and only to the degree necessary to accomplish
that development objective.
3) Tax increment financing will only be used in cases where the City has the financial
capacity to provide the needed public assistance, the Council deems it fiscally
prudent to provide such assistance, and the developer can clearly demonstrate the
development will be able to meet it’s financial and public purpose obligation.
4) The financing method of TIF districts shall be a “pay-as-you-go” method whereby the
applicant fronts the costs and will be reimbursed by the City over time as increment
becomes available. The developer shall be considered the borrower under ‘pay-as-
you-go” and the City shall not be liable for debt. As an alternative, the City Council
may consider the issuance of bonded indebtedness through tax increment bonds
only when unique circumstances determine “pay-as-you-go” is not feasible.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
7
5) Applicants shall waive their right to use of the discretionary formula.
6) Only those public improvements and redevelopment costs directly associated with,
or needed to service the proposed development plan or project, should be financed
through tax increment proceeds.
7) The amount of increment remitted to the developer shall not exceed the amount in
the approved project plan as adopted by the City Council; and shall be only for the
lesser of either actual or budgeted expenditures in the approved plan.
8) The duration of the tax increment district shall be determined in the approved
project plan as adopted by the City and shall terminate at such time as the sufficient
increment has been generated pursuant to the approved project plan. In the event
sufficient increment has not been generated by the time of the scheduled
decertification of the district, the developer shall be responsible for any shortfall.
9) Tax increment expenditures shall only be made for items directly related to, and
ancillary to, a bona fide public purpose or public benefit as determined exclusively by
the City Council.
10) The City shall advertise for competitive bids for construction of the project, shall
hold the construction contract, and shall make payments to the contractor with
reimbursements from the applicant for pay-as-you-go projects, or from the bond fund
for bonded indebtedness funds. The City shall not make any payments to the
contractor until the applicant has made sufficient deposits to the City to cover the
contractor payments for pay-as-you-go projects.
11) All development proposals should seek to maximize the amount of private
investment per dollar of public assistance. Public assistance as a percentage of total
development costs will be determined for each project as part of the review and
compared to other development projects or subprojects of similar scope and
magnitude whenever possible.
12) The City may, on a case-by-case basis, establish public purpose requirements specific
to an application that must be met for the project. Such requirements shall be
described in the project plan, development agreement, or other binding document
between the City and the applicant, which may be in addition to the scope of
applicable city ordinances or policies. Such items which may be included and if
included would require performance by the Applicant may include but are not
limited to: prescribed valuation of a home or building, acreage or building sizes,
wages, number of jobs created/retained, building materials affecting appearance,
landscaping, signage, property valuation increases, sales tax generating capacity,
historic preservation, environmental improvements, transportation improvements,
blight remediation, parking improvements, etc.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
8
13) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that sufficient market
demand exists for the proposed project. TIF shall not be used to support
speculative projects.
14) Applicant must provide adequate financial guarantees to constitute a minimum of 10
percent equity investment cash infusion by Applicant into the overall project.
Private lender financing and TIF shall not be counted toward the 10 percent equity
requirement.
15) Applicant must provide adequate financial and legal guarantees to ensure completion
of the project, including, but not limited to letters of credit, performance bonds,
personal guarantees, etc.
16) For the purposes of underwriting the proposal, the applicant shall provide any
requested market, financial, environmental, or other data pertaining to the proposed
TIF project requested by the City or its consultants.
17) The project must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations, Land Use Plan, and any other duly-adopted
master plans affected by the use of Tax Increment Financing.
18) The applicant shall adequately demonstrate, to the City’s sole satisfaction, an ability
to complete the proposed project based on past development experience, general
reputation, and credit history, among other factors, including the size and scope of
the project.
19) The City may reject the use of TIF if it determines the project would place an
extraordinary demand on city services or if the project that would have significant
detrimental impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare of the community.
20) The City may consider amendments to either the district boundaries after a district
is certified, or to the previously-adopted project plan. Amendments may be
necessary to accommodate changes to desired public purpose outcomes.
21) The final interest rate and terms on the TIF Note shall be determined by the City
Council and incorporated into the Development Agreement.
22) Projects will only be considered if they are projected to generate a minimum
positive increment of $1 million within the first five years.
Section III: Economic Analysis and Risk Assessment Process
1) Proposed uses of tax increment will be subject to rigorous economic analysis and
risk assessment. This analysis will be conducted by the TIF Review Staff Team
through their review process. The analysis may include review and assessment by
consultants. (The TIF Review Staff Team shall consist of: City Manager (or
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
9
designee), City Finance Officer, City Engineer, Community Development Director,
Planning/Zoning Administrator, BEDC Economic Development Director.)
2) The analysis and assessment of all proposed uses of tax increment will address the
following questions as part of the standard format for reports to the City Council.
i. What is the public purpose of the financial assistance for this project?
ii. Why is there a financial need for public investment and/or subsidy?
iii. What is the total cost of the project?
iv. What is the appropriate level of public participation?
v. What are the risks associated with the project?
vi. What are the alternative plans for managing the risk?
vii. How does the proposed project finance plan compare with previously
approved comparable projects?
viii. What is the project’s impact on other publicly financed projects?
3) The results of the Economic Analysis and Risk Assessment will be presented to the
City Planning Commission and City Council at a time consistent with the schedule
provided in Section V. The report shall identify any elements of the proposed
project that are not in conformance with this policy.
4) Applicants shall pay a TIF application fee as determined by City resolution as a
means of cost recovery for time and resources involved with approval of a TIF
project. The fee shall be due and payable as part of the application process in
Section V, Step 3. The process outlined in Section V shall not proceed until this
amount has been paid in full. Applicants shall pay the fees associated with the Bond
Counsel and Financial Advisor who shall be retained by the City for review of the
TIF project. Applicants shall pay direct costs associated with processing the TIF
application including but not limited to postage, hearing notices, surveys, platting,
engineering, copying, legal fees, appraisals, recording fees, etc. Such costs shall not
be the responsibility of the City.
5) The City may require periodic reports on the financial and developmental
performance of the TIF district during the term of the district.
Section IV: Eligible costs of tax increment revenue
The City reserves the right to further restrict eligible costs as enumerated in state law in this
policy as well as for each TIF project. Private buildings, structures, utilities or other private-use
improvements are not eligible for TIF assistance. Development costs that are eligible for
reimbursement with tax increment revenues are listed below.
Property acquisition
Elimination of slum and blighted conditions on property/land clearance
Soils corrections
Site preparation/clearing and grading of land
Removal of hazardous wastes or remediation of site contamination
Construction of capital public improvements such as:
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
10
Streets Curb and gutter
Storm drainage utilities/ponds Wastewater utilities
Water utilities Sidewalks/trails/pathways
Landscaping improvements Signage & traffic controls
Lighting Public parking lots
Organizational costs
Capitalized interest/finance charges
Professional service costs
Imputed administrative costs
Relocation costs
Other costs permitted by state law as may be prescribed in the TIF project plan.
Section V: Tax Increment Finance application and approval process
Each step must be approved before the project can move to the next step. The project shall be
terminated for failure to meet the requirements of each step unless each step is satisfactorily
completed or the step is modified to the satisfaction of the City in order to advance to the next
step.
1) Applicant submits pre-application for TIF project to Community Development
Director. (Attachment 1)
2) City Council reviews pre-application to assess viability/feasibility of project.
3) Applicant submits full application, including application fee, to Community
Development Director. (Attachment 2)
4) TIF Review Team undertakes review of the application and project.
5) Project Plan is written by Review Team, Bond Counsel, & Financial Advisor.
6) Notices of a Public Hearing before Planning Commission are distributed.
7) Planning Commission holds public hearing; approves the district boundaries and
project plan.
8) TIF Review Team develops Development Agreement.
9) City Council approves district boundaries and Project Plan.
10) City Engineer and Community Development Director give final approval of
development plans.
11) City Council approves Development Agreement.
12) City advertises for bidders for the construction of the project.
13) City staff holds bid opening, City Council awards contract for construction.
14) City Engineer gives contractor notice to proceed with construction.
15) City forwards appropriate records to Dept. of Revenue and County Officers.
16) Review/evaluation of project performance. (Attachment 3)
NOTE: In the event the TIF Review Team rejects the project in Step 4, the applicant may
appeal to the City Council. The TIF Review Team shall provide the applicant a list of
deficiencies as justification for any rejection of the project.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
11
Attachment 1: Pre-application
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
Applicant Name and Address: Date:________
Proposed project location: (Address, legal description) Attach a map
Current zoning: _____ Zoning Change to accommodate proposed project: _____
Project Description:
Improvements to be financed by TIF:
Estimated cost of total project and TIF-eligible expenses:
Current status of development: (platted, zoned, engineered, designed, etc.)
--------------------------------------- FOR CITY USE ONLY-----------------------------------
Staff Review Comments:
Recommend to go to City Council for Section V; Step 2: ___YES ___NO
If NO, what are the deficiencies?
Community Development Director:________________________ Date:______
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
12
Attachment 2: TIF Application
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
THIS SECTION WILL BE WRITTEN AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVES THE OVERALL POLICY.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
13
Attachment 3: Evaluation/project performance
Tax Increment Finance Policy
-City of Brookings, South Dakota-
Department of Community Development
THIS SECTION WILL BE WRITTEN AFTER THE COUNCIL
APPROVES THE OVERALL POLICY.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
14
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
2. Discussion Regarding Provisions of Restaurant Liquor
Operating Agreements.
With the ordinance and the fee adopted for the new Restaurant Liquor License, the final
step is to modify, if so determined, our Operating Agreements to reflect this distinction
from the other Operating Agreements. While most terms and conditions in the current
Operating Agreement can be easily transferred to this new document, there may be
some provisions we wish to be different. Each Operating Agreement is a separate and
distinct agreement between the establishment and the City so we have latitude for them
to be unique.
Some terms and conditions that members of the Ad Hoc Liquor Committee have
suggested may be included in the new Operating Agreement are:
• requirement of a point-of-sale system for effective monitoring of the
60/40 requirement;
• minimum size requirement of establishment, either square footage or
seating capacity;
• audit requirements more frequently than during the annual renewal;
• extent and scope of the audit process.
The council may wish to include other provisions but it has been suggested the full
Council discuss these items and give staff direction for the new Operating Agreements.
LIQUOR OPERATING AGREEMENT
Name of business
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY OF
BROOKINGS, a municipal corporation of the State of South Dakota, hereinafter referred to as
the “City” and ________________. (dba _________), _____________, owner, hereinafter
referred to as the “Manager”.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has been issued an on-sale alcoholic beverage license and is
engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an operating agreement on a limited basis with
the Manager for the purpose of operating an on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf
of the City pursuant to law, and
WHEREAS, the Manager has offered to have facilities in which to operate said on-sale
establishment solely upon the premises hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I.
This Agreement is made and entered into on a limited basis between the parties hereto to
allow the Manager to operate a retail on-sale premises, pursuant to and in accordance with all of
the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with all State laws and City
Ordinances now in effect and as may be enacted in the future.
II.
The Manager shall be individually responsible for all operating expenses of said on-sale
establishment, including but not limited to utilities, taxes, insurance and license fees, if any.
The Manager shall furnish all equipment and fixtures necessary to operate the
establishment.
III.
The on-sale establishment shall be located upon real estate in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota, described as:
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION), City of Brookings, Brookings County,
South Dakota
IV.
The Manager shall dispense only alcoholic beverages supplied by the Municipal off-sale
establishment.
V.
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years with the
Manager having the option and privilege of a five (5) year extension, subject to the approval of
the governing body of the City of Brookings.
VI.
Either the Manager or the City may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ninety
(90) days written notice served by either party upon the other. The City reserves the right to
immediately suspend or revoke this Agreement without ninety (90) days written notice for
alcohol related violations in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No. 25-88 or any
amendments thereto or for any late payments for alcoholic beverages supplied by the Municipal
off-sale establishment to be sold on the premises of Manager.
VII.
The Manager shall receive as full compensation for its services rendered, the net profit
from the on-sale establishment under its management, and the sole profit to be derived by the
City shall be the markup hereinafter set forth on alcoholic beverages furnished by the
municipality to the Manager for the purposes of resale on the premises as above described.
VIII.
The Manager shall pay to the City for all alcoholic beverages sold by the City to the
Manager for resale on the above-described premises, the actual cost of distilled spirits and wine
supplied by the City, plus eleven percent (11%) in excess of such cost; the Manager shall pay to
the City for all malt beverages sold by the City to the Manager for resale on the above-described
premises, the actual cost of malt beverages, plus ten percent (10%) in excess of such cost. The
actual cost shall include cost price and transportation charges. The markup percentages provided
in this Agreement are subject to change by the City of Brookings. In the event markup
percentages are changed by Ordinance, then the markup percentages provided by City Ordinance
shall supercede the markup percentages provided herein. The Manager further agrees that if
either of the markup percentages shall be increased at any time by the City, the Manager shall
pay the markup as so increased.
2
IX.
A complete and detailed record shall be maintained by the City of all alcoholic beverages
supplied to the on-sale Manager and such alcoholic beverages so supplied shall be evidenced by
prenumbered invoices prepared in triplicate showing the date, quantity, brand, size and actual
cost of such item, and such invoice shall bear the signature of the authorized representative of the
on-sale Manager or its authorized representative. One copy thereof shall be retained by the
Municipal off-sale establishment, one copy shall be retained by the on-sale establishment, and
one copy shall be filed with the City Clerk. All copies shall be kept as permanent records and
made available for reference and audit purposes. The Manager also agrees to maintain a
complete record of all alcoholic beverages received from the City.
X.
In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the Manager agrees
to pay the CITY OF BROOKINGS, One Thousand Five Hundred and no/100 Dollars
($1,500.00), constituting the Annual License Fee on or by January 1, _________, and on or by
the first day of each year thereafter as long as this agreement shall remain in force and effect.
The Manager further agrees that if the annual fee shall be increased at any time by the
legislature, the Manager shall pay the amount of any such increase. In addition, the Manager
agrees to pay the federal stamp fee.
XI.
The Manager agrees to keep the premises in a neat, clean and attractive appearance, and
Manager further agrees to operate said on-sale establishment only on such days and at such hours
as permitted by state law and city ordinances.
XII.
The Manager shall have the right to return, at any time, alcoholic beverages received
from the City and to receive in return any deposit made for such alcoholic beverages; in the
event of termination of the business, all unused alcoholic beverages, which may be resold
without discount may be returned to the City and the Manager shall be reimbursed for the cost
of such alcoholic beverages.
XIII.
The Manager agrees to abide by the credit policies of the City and acknowledges, by
execution of this Agreement, receipt of a copy of the credit policies of the City. The City
reserves the right to change or terminate its credit policies at any time, but shall be required to
provide written notice to Manager prior to the effective date of the change or termination date of
the credit policies.
3
XIV.
The Manager agrees to furnish the City upon demand, evidence of payment of the
following:
A. All salaries of on-sale employees;
B. Social Security and withholding taxes on said employees;
C. Worker’s Compensation insurance premiums covering said employees;
D. Unemployment taxes on the payrolls of said employees;
E. General liability insurance protecting both the City and Manager against claims for
injury or damages to persons or property, said policy to have general liability limits of
at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) single limit, and One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) aggregate, and a limitation of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00) for damage to property. The general liability insurance limits are
subject to change and Manager agrees to change limits of insurance if required by the
City;
F. Rent and utility bills;
G. Any and all miscellaneous expenses, including taxes.
XV.
The Manager agrees to observe all Federal and State laws and all ordinances of the City
of Brookings.
XVI.
The City covenants and agrees to furnish the on-sale license to Manager pursuant to the
terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement and the terms and conditions of the on-sale
license.
XVII.
The City shall have the right to make inspections and investigations of the premises
during the hours of operation, and make audits and examinations of the records of the Manager
relating to the on-sale establishment.
4
5
XVIII.
It is further specifically understood and agreed that the waiver of the rights of the City
under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuous waiver, and any violation or breach of the
terms of this agreement by the Manager shall constitute a separate and distinct offense and
grounds for immediate termination and revocation of this Agreement.
XIV.
This agreement shall not be assignable to another person or location without the written
consent of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement this 27th day of
February, 2007.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, South Dakota
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, Brookings City Clerk
MANAGER
By: ___________________________________
Operating Agreement/Business Owner
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
20
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
3. 6:00 p.m. Meeting Review.
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance / Presentation of Colors by Wolf Den Pack 24.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John Deere 544G Loader as surplus
property.
D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney.
E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for accessible parking violation.
F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a house moving hourly fee for police escort.
G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending Great Lakes as the carrier for Essential Air
Service.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **:
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on
Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Public Hearing: January 13th
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the West 338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-
T110N-R50W, except the South 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A
District.
Public Hearing: January 13th
9. Ordinance No. 45-08: An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation
To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Second Reading: December 16th
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on a lease of real property to private entity - Library Coffee Shop Contract.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Public hearing and action on annual liquor and wine renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
12. Action on Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU for the SDSU
Wellness Center (TABLED ITEM).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action: Request public comment, roll call
13. Action on Larson Ice Center building/parking lot modification project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, Roll Call
14. Report from Brookings Transportation Board.
Informational
15. Discussion regarding City of Brookings acquisition of South Dakota Department of Transportation
property (I-29 & Highway 14).
Action: Motion to reject purchase agreement, request public comment, Roll Call
16. Executive Session for purposes of legal matters.
Action: Motion to enter session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
17. Adjourn.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
21
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
4. Council Invites & Obligations
December 16th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
December 25th
Holiday / Christmas
City Hall Closed
December 26th
Holiday
City Hall Closed
January 1st
Holiday / New Years
City Hall Closed
January 13th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
January 19th
Holiday / Dr. Martin Luther King Day
City Hall Closed
January 21st
Brookings Day in Legislature
All Day
Pierre
January 27th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
January 30th
Earliest Date to Circulate & File
Petitions
February 3rd
SDML / Gov’t Day Dinner
Evening
Pierre
February 4th
SDML Gov’t Day in Legislature
All Day
Pierre
February 10th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
February 16th
Holiday / President’s Day
City Hall Closed
February 19th
Annual Goal Setting Retreat
All Day
Brookings
February 24th
City Council Meeting
5 & 6 pm
City Hall
February 27th
Deadline to file petitions
5 pm
March 16-20
Board of Equalization Hearings
April 14th
Election
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
22
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
** Work sessions are open to the public. During the work session the city staff would brief the council on items
for that particular meeting, introduce future topics, and provide a time for Council members to introduce topics.
5. City Council member introduction of topics for future
discussion*.
*Any Council member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting
only. Items can not be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is
required starting the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is
required.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
23
6:00 p.m. Council Meeting
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance / Presentation of Colors by Wolf Den Pack 24.
3. City Clerk records council attendance.
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John Deere 544G Loader as surplus
property.
D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney.
E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for accessible parking violation.
F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a house moving hourly fee for police escort.
G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending Great Lakes as the carrier for Essential Air
Service.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
Presentations/Reports/Special Requests:
5. Open Forum.
6. SDSU Report.
Ordinances – 1st Readings **:
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on
Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South).
Public Hearing: January 13th
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the West 338 feet of the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-
T110N-R50W, except the South 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A
District.
Public Hearing: January 13th
9. Ordinance No. 45-08: An Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation
To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City.
Second Reading: December 16th
Second Readings & Public Hearings:
10. Public hearing and action on a lease of real property to private entity - Library Coffee Shop Contract.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
11. Public hearing and action on annual liquor and wine renewals.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to approve, Roll Call
Other Business.
12. Action on Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU for the SDSU
Wellness Center (TABLED ITEM).
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action: Request public comment, roll call
13. Action on Larson Ice Center building/parking lot modification project.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, Roll Call
14. Report from Brookings Transportation Board.
Informational
15. Discussion regarding City of Brookings acquisition of South Dakota Department of Transportation
property (I-29 & Highway 14).
Action: Motion to reject purchase agreement, request public comment, Roll Call
16. Executive Session for purposes of legal matters.
Action: Motion to enter session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
17. Adjourn.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
24
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4. Action to approve the following Consent Agenda Items *
A. Action to approve the agenda.
B. Action to approve minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996
John Deere 544G Loader as surplus property.
D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney.
E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for
accessible parking violation.
F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a
house moving hourly fee for police escort.
G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending
Great Lakes as the carrier for Essential Air Service.
Action: Motion to approve, request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
25
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4B. Minutes.
The minutes from the October 14, 2008 City Council meeting are enclosed for council
review and action.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
26
Brookings City Council
October 14, 2008
(unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 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. Acting City
Manager Jackie Lanning, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Deputy City Clerk Bonnie Foster were
also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
SD Long-Term Care Partnership Program. The SD Long-Term Care Partnership Program will be
making one stop in Brookings on October 23rd. There will be free public education sessions on: how long-
term care works, what Medicare and Medicaid pay for, how to plan ahead, and what to look for in long-term
care insurance.
Department of Transportation Land Discussion.
Weldon stated to date, discussions have centered on what we need to do to exercise our options by
the end of the year; to purchase the property or not. The city entered into an extension agreement
with the SDDOT for the property. The option agreement is for $4 million for the approximate 26
acres on the NE corner of Highway 14 and Interstate 29.
A draft Request for Proposals (RFPs) was in the council packet. RFPs are used in assessing the
interest of various parties (developers, realtors, builders, property owners, etc.) who may be
interested in a subsequent end use project. This was developed by Mayor Munsterman and Council
Members Bartley and McClemans, who asked City Manager Weldon to put something together for
council discussion that may serve as a guide in this decision. Weldon estimates a 30-day turnaround
time, if chosen to do so.
McClemans felt the $4 million price tag for the property is quite strong. The RFP is an opportunity
to visit with people with interest in hotels, restaurants, convenience stores, or other types of retail
development. The TIF on this property helps make it more attractive to a private developer. If the
original price tag is $4 million, and the infrastructure is covered in a TIF, it is more of a $2.5 million
purchase for a private individual/developer. However, if the city buys the property for $4 million,
then the TIF is given up and the cost escalates to $5.5 million. The city should be involved, but not
as the purchaser, as there are other places to spend $4 million and he feels the private sector can do
a much better job of developing. If there is no public/private interest, it says two things: 1) the
economy is not healthy, 2) developing a parcel like this is risky and now isn’t the right time. A few
years ago this property was handed off to a developer and it didn’t develop. The public deserves an
opportunity.
Bartley remembered past discussion centering on the idea of having a pre-auction of the land. The
auction is the appraisal…price of the land. The city has an option to buy for $4 million, but if the
auction only produced $2 million or $2.5 million, then there would be some serious consideration
whether or not to exercise the option to buy for $4 million or reject a bid of $2.5 million and walk
away from the project. This also is an opportunity to take the highest bidder from an auction, or an
RFP. We could then take that particular price to the Governor/SDDOT and possibly try to
renegotiate that purchase price downward. It does prove to us what the market value is today if we
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
27
have some RFP’s come in or ask for bids. Bartley is uncertain if it is legal to do a pre-auction with
the ability to reject all bids if they don’t meet the $4 million. This would present an idea of what is
out there and what isn’t out there. Bartley asked Britzman if it was possible to do something of that
nature.
Britzman stated it would be possible from a legal standpoint. The city clearly has a contractual right
to acquire the property. With that contractual right, the city could plan an auction, which is
permitted under state law, or some other process, because of the legal right to acquire the land. A
procedural point to note is in the way the contract is written, the city would have to give written
notice to the state, not of the desire to exercise the option, this has already been done, but the city
has to give the SDDOT notice prior to December 31st to terminate the interest in the property. The
notice needs to be sent to the state prior to December 31st if chosen not to pursue the land.
Bartley clarified that is why he asked if it was alright to do an auction. An auction is subject to
refusal of all bids. It will give us an idea if there is an interest or not. The RFPs are going to come
in at various dollar figures to develop this, this and this, but the information is not legally binding.
There is nothing to fall back on. If there’s a way we can do an auction legally and reject or accept
the bids, and determine if the nature of the offer is economic development that is beneficial to the
community and it moves the property quicker and helps the developer, rather than going in the
private hands where it could potentially sit. He would much rather see that option, hopefully not
costing the City of Brookings taxpayers very much money, to have the property developed and not
sitting vacant.
If the city doesn’t exercise the option to buy the property and notifies the state as such, Bartley sees
two options for the state: 1) hang on to the land until such time the state feels it would be more
valuable, which would possibly be a long-term thing where it would just sit there, and that would be
an eyesore for the City of Brookings and it wouldn’t be economically beneficial, and 2) conduct an
auction. If it did go to an auction opportunity, the state would end up with the same situation we’ve
got, except for the fact that there’s no control over who purchases it at that point in time. It could
then again sit if somebody of means bought it and decided to sit on it for 15 years before they
develop it and let the property value go up to recoup the purchase price. That situation scares him a
little bit. The city does have some control over the property with the Planned Development District
overlay, which was requested by the SDDOT several years back. The PDD was approved by the
Planning Commission to protect the property from having something developed that wouldn’t be
good for the city in that location. We need to establish a value quickly before we throw $4 million
to this and then we sit on it for 5-10 years before we recoup our funds back by selling it. The
question becomes are we in economic development or are we in real estate? You have to have one
to get the other…he just doesn’t know which one comes first. Bartley would like to see a realistic
valuation of this property and doesn’t know if an appraiser would get that as fast as an auction
would.
If an auction is held, the city would be in the surplus property statutes according to Britzman. The
high bidder takes the property if the city does not reject the bid. The buyer’s use of the property is
at their discretion, because it was disposed of as surplus property. It is just a matter of who pays the
most for it regardless of what their use of the property is. Zoning would be the only stipulation.
Brunner asked if the State did an appraisal, and asked if the city had done its own appraisal at today’s
value. McClemans commented the state won’t admit to having an appraisal done. He does not
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
28
want to be in a position where tax payer money is spent to get something going. He doesn’t like the
auction situation, unless possibly the city is one of the bidders. He wants the property developed,
but doesn’t want someone to buy just speculating. As part of the RFP, we want something to
happen. We want somebody to say they are bringing ‘this’ to the package and are going to pay this
for the property and the city is going to be involved from a TIF standpoint. This is at least a good
opportunity to see where the market is, and what people’s ideas are. The city is not in the
development business. This is 26 acres … larger than the area on the south side of 6th Street that
has Applebee’s and four hotels. This needs to be developed, and developed right. Several years ago
he didn’t agree in making it a PDD. PDDs control the zoning, but also cause the property to be
worth less. PDDs restrict what you can do with it, and consequently it restricts what people are
willing to pay for it. McClemans recommends to pull the PDD. The city would still have control of
what happens to the property, but it shows flexibility. There is a need and a time for PDDs, but
doesn’t know if this is the right time.
Brunner sees a need to measure the interest in the property. If the city purchases this property for
$4 million, then lets it sit undeveloped, it’s not doing any good. If somebody other than the city
purchases it and speculates on it/holds it, at least it is on the tax roles and contributing to property
taxes. He doesn’t want the city to buy the property and then have trouble having someone come in
and develop it.
McClemans stressed this needs to be a joint effort that makes sense for both the city and economic
development in the city. The Request for Proposals gives a chance to look at some things and not
do them if they don’t make sense or are not a good proposal. He posed the thought of not
purchasing the property at all because of the cost.
Weldon questioned how likely are these parties to submit this information for fear of tipping their
hand in future negotiations. The information is not legally binding, rather trying to see what is out
there, but he is wondering how it will be received by these parties. We are trying to get their
attention. It gets to the liability of doing that. Weldon is not sure if what he has written captures
that intent and wants to be sure it is a good process.
Bartley stated the TIF adds some short-term value even though it is active now and on a time frame.
The only options are to cancel it before anything happens, which could be done and start over again
with a different developer or not depending on the needs. If someone were to buy it, the TIF stays
there, irregardless. If the purchaser wants to take advantage of the TIF, they will have to act quickly,
as it is on a 5-year time period. If the property could be developed in under 5 years, the TIF may
give an extra leverage issue. Brunner didn’t realize the clock was running on the TIF. Weldon
clarified it is a 5-year knock down rule, which gives one 5 years to complete the improvements that
are eligible for TIF reimbursement once the District is certified. The District was certified in 2007,
leaving 3 years left in order to complete construction.
McClemans agreed with Bartley, that the TIF is a good draw. $1.5 is a pretty good number that
makes the buy-down more accessible with access to the TIF. In moving forward, infrastructure
needs to be in and hopefully it will then develop a bit faster. He asked Britzman if these Request for
Proposals come in, and with Weldon’s concerns, who has to look at them? Do they have to be
made public, or can they be reviewed privately?
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
29
The public records rule states if the records are required to be maintained, then it is a public record.
That is the fundamental rule. There would have to be some public discussion on these to be of any
benefit, which would make the document public. Britzman doesn’t know how the city could move
forward without these being public documents. The most sensitive item in the document would be
the price. There is uncertainty if the price is essential as the first step in the process, or maybe it is
the timing. Maybe allow pricing to be an issue discussed at a later time and try to determine how
soon they would be able to move forward in terms of the development of the project as a substitute
to the last line. The last dollar amount does create the open real-difficult area in terms of
confidentiality. These documents would have to be an open record in order for them to be of any
real value.
Anything submitted to the City where there will be public discussion is considered a public record.
One needs to look at the context in the way it is going to be used, and the reason why these
documents are being requested to be submitted. Britzman can’t imagine referring to a document in
discussions, that he as City Attorney reviewed, of which somebody submitted to the city requesting
that it be confidential. If there are discussions about it, he has questions as to whether the
confidentiality of the record can be maintained or should be maintained.
Weldon stated his concerns would possibly be alleviated by Britzman’s suggestion if we were to not
talk about the dollar amount. If we were to just take this project at a 10-thousand foot level, look at
development concepts, set the money issue aside for a minute and look at some positive
redevelopment efforts. Look at the what-ifs before getting bogged down in exactly what the cost is
going to be and how much TIF might be generated or available. This might be more receptive on
the part of the person wishing to submit something.
Brunner asked about working with BEDC on the RFPs. If BEDC looked at the RFP’s, that would
prevent anyone from tipping their hat, and asked if that was a possibility.
Al Heuton, BEDC Director, stated that that is a possibility if the council wanted to work through
BEDC in order to maintain some confidentiality. BEDC is willing to serve in that capacity. Weldon
stated it might help generate more interest. It is an excellent idea if the council determines it would
help the process out.
Bezdichek directed his comments to opposing this entire conversation. His initial concern when
looking at purchasing this was as if there are already some speculators, some developers in line. He
strongly suggests the city write a letter to SDDOT by Dec. 31 and withdraw the request for
purchase. He stated government is to do what the government is to do, and that is setting up a TIF
District, changing zoning, and working with the Planning Commission. For any developer that is
looking at Brookings right now, they have to understand Brookings is bursting at the seams with
development. He doesn’t believe that anyone would buy it to speculate and sit on it. It isn’t
necessarily right to spend taxpayer’s dollars on this property. There are current projects now such as
the drainage plan, decisions regarding the airport, the possible hospital/nursing home expansion that
could use that money. For the council to deliberate and take a certain amount of time on how to
determine how it should be developed, whether it should be auctioned, whether to take sealed
bids…it seems as though it is more as to what a private developer should do. We are seeing right
now a large developer out of Sioux Falls, Craig Lloyd Co., coming to Brookings working with
Dennis Bielfeldt. Those developers are out there and they are watching what is going on in
Brookings. He has no interest in doing anything with this property. Bezdichek doesn’t believe that
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
30
when you talk about the $4 million it is at all in the best interest of Brookings’ taxpayers. His sole
suggestion is to, by December 31st, write the SDDOT, rescind the offer to purchase, and let them do
all this stuff we are talking about.
Brunner stated the only problem would be if the state decided to hold that land, or transfer it to
another government entity, then it wouldn’t be developed at all. He would like to see BEDC or
someone explore what is out there, then help facilitate that development. If there’s nothing out
there at a reasonable price or within our means, it is something where he doesn’t think we should
spend $4 million for that property either.
Bezdichek clarified that the state is Brookings. He can’t believe there isn’t any dialogue we can have
with the state. The state is going to say, well, we’re going to speculate, so for the next 15 years we
are going to hold that with the idea that the value is going up. The state is us, the state is Brookings.
He would like to think that the state would have the best interest of Brookings. He would like to
believe the state has our best interest in mind.
McClemans reminded the council this conversation started over concerns that the city doesn’t buy
this property. He has no desire to spend $4 million and try to develop it. By doing it this way, there
is an opportunity to point it in a direction, and still have time to do just what you’re saying. He is
willing to give someone a shot if they want to do a proposal that keeps the City neutral.
Bartley asked Al Heuton if he had any comments about the entire concept of what should be done
about that entire piece of property. Al Heuton stated the idea to plot out the proposals to potential
developers is a good idea. If you have somebody that comes back with a proposal with or without a
price, at least you have something to consider. BEDC has been involved in retail recruitment within
the community, and has been working on some big boxes as potential anchors or tenants on that
property. With the retail market the way it is right now, this is a smart move to see what kind of
interest might be out there.
Bezdichek asked Heuton what is the difference between the SDDOT or the City of Brookings
contacting you? If the SDDOT has a developer interested in Brookings, wouldn’t they contact you?
Heuton commented it would be interesting to see an appraisal on the property and see if it is worth
the requested $4 million. If this property goes back to the SDDOT, we don’t know what they are
going to do with it; use it for some other purpose, sell it, sit on it. If they decide to sell it, what
occurs with that is only as good as your ability to negotiate. Planned Development Districts (PDDs)
have some drawbacks, but would recommend not opening it up to the SDDOT or any other party
without the development controls the PDD has, but rather writing a different type of zoning district
for that land as the business zoning districts the City of Brookings has are a bit too broad for this
property.
Bezdicheck restated his point that if someone is interested in coming to Brookings, he has to believe
they are going to contact BEDC first. They have to contact BEDC if they want to know what is
happening. Why is the city doing the legwork when the SDDOT could be? Heuton stated it is his
hope that one would contact BEDC if they are interested in Brookings. However, if neither the city
nor BEDC has control of the property, he is not sure how to negotiate the land deal with SDDOT
other than to send interested parties to Pierre to deal with SDDOT.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
31
ACTION: Motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to direct the City Manager
and BEDC Executive Director, Al Heuton, with City Attorney Britzman’s legal advice, to
put the proposal process in place and to bring proposals back to the council by the first
meeting in December.
Council Discussion: Britzman commented this is a novel procedure, so we would want to tell them what it is and what
it is not. It is not a binding proposal, but rather information gathering to access the level of interest in the community,
but is not a binding commitment upon either party. This is more or less information to utilize as a tool for the city,
and asked the council if that was a characterization the council would agree with. Yes. Bartley stated that would be
proper characterization.
McClemans would like to possibly add an amendment to the motion to change the zoning from a PDD to B3 or
whatever. A PDD for a developer works against what his abilities are. You can get a lot of those answers, but he
thinks a PDD…obviously the state doesn’t have to follow our zoning, but he thinks it makes the property more
attractive. He will wait and make a separate motion after discussion.
Bartley clarified, as a point of order, that is a zoning request and needs to go through the proper channels with the
Planning Commission. If that were to happen, the council can’t make that change here this evening. McClemans
stated you can’t wait until November or December, whenever they meet next. Bartley argued that the council can’t
change it. McClemans stated he would like to then make the recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Weldon seconded Bartley’s concern. There is a process for rezoning and hearings would have to be held. Bartley is
right, that timeline is not conducive to what we are trying to do here. You can’t short-circuit that process legally. We
can always do that at a later time. Whaley asked about putting in the RFP a question/comment regarding possible
zoning changes to meet the developer’s needs. Give them the option if they want to leave the zoning as is, or change it
to whatever would best fit their proposal. McClemans doesn’t know if an amendment is needed if it goes through all
the channels, but would add an amendment that concludes that there is some openness to the zoning. The PDD
doesn’t make it as attractive. The availability to change the zoning or reconsider zoning makes sense.
Bartley disagreed that we would make this amendment because you can’t precondition these things with action that is
not necessarily requested nor acted upon through the proper channels. What you’re telling the Planning Commission is,
by the way, we told everybody that we are open to rezoning this. Everybody understands that when they buy property,
there’s a process to go through if they want to rezone the property to make it another use. The document obviously has
to tell them what the zoning currently is and what a Planned Development District is and doesn’t need to go any
further than that. He thinks we are getting down to the administrative things that are in the document and he thinks
that the City Attorney and the City Manager can handle that.
McClemans commented if it goes to the Planning Commission in its timeframe and whether they approve or
disapprove, it still comes to the council to approve or not approve the zoning change. He wants this viewed as a
recommendation. A PDD detracts from the value. Change the zoning to the most attractive zoning.
Dan Hanson, Planning & Zoning Administrator, clarified that PDDs are very common in larger cities. A PDD
allows developers flexibility in designing projects. Mr. McClemans referred to an appraiser, but appraisers are not
planners. All they look at is the highest and best use of the property, which is not a planning principle…that is a
selling principle. The PDD was done because it matches the Comprehensive Plan for gateways. This property is a
very important gateway to Brookings. We would like it to be very aesthetic, so we put a PDD on it, which the state
blessed. The SDDOT didn’t have an issue with that. PDDs are very practical and functional. In many large cities,
very large areas are used for PDDs. It is a very good planning tool to use. There are no restrictions, no underlined
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
32
zoning established. Currently, anybody can do anything with that PDD; they can request residential, retail, or
industrial. A PDD is simply an overlay that allows for a mixture of uses. There is no said zoning on this district.
That is why we did it with a PDD.
McClemans clarified that that is his point, if it is zoned B3 or whatever you recommend, then they will have an idea of
the zoning. His problem with PDDs is that one doesn’t know what they’ve been zoned. He understands the
flexibility, but a developer doesn’t know what they are getting into. Hansen stated they have the ability to ask.
McClemans argued that developers are to put forth a proposal and see what you tell them they can do. He sees that as
handicapping the person with an idea, as they will not know if they could do what they want to do for a development.
We want the best use of the property. The PDD handicaps whoever.
Reed stated it is wide open as to what they can do. This is an issue we can revisit if we feel we need to change it. They
can still fill out these RFPs. The question is when it comes time for them to execute anything, that we would want to
make sure that we can expedite what they would like to do.
McClemans stated that is his point, with the PDD, you have to come to the Planning Commission to get an approval
to get the plan started. You are really asking people to bring us their best thing and they don’t know if they can do
their best thing. We can take it off a PDD and we can put it back to a PDD, but in doing this kind of proposal,
you’re really not helping yourself.
Reed stated the zoning doesn’t have to be changed at the beginning of this proposal process, because that is not going to
change what they may bring to us. He asked McClemans if that made sense. McClemans stated no. Hansen says it
is wide open. As you bring your best proposal forward, you don’t know what your zoning is; that handicaps you.
You won’t get this proposal by the first of December if you’re still handcuffing people with what the zoning is. You’re
really not doing yourself any good. Bartley clarified for Council Member McClemans that this property is not going to
have just one zone. It is going to be divided up into different parcels with different zoning. Under a PDD there is the
ability to do all that. Under McClemans proposal, it would all be B4 or whatever, and then they have to come in and
ask for it to be rezoned anyway. The value of the land is not as important to the government as is the control of the
development.
Reed interrupted stating we know we want to get the proposal process going forward. He believes that is the most
important part here and there may be more discussion to see how we should go forward with the zoning of that
property. He feels that is a fair discussion and asked McClemans if there was any amendment he wanted to add.
AMENDMENT: Motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Whaley, to recommend to
the Planning Commission to change the zoning from a PDD. Bartley made a point of order
that state law doesn’t allow us to make recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Council Discussion on Amendment: Brunner is concerned with the way the amendment would be worded, it would
have to go to the Planning Commission and by the time it got to the Planning Commission and back to the council, it
would already be past the December deadline for RFPs. Before the Planning Commission would take action on it, it
would come back up to the council. We would already be past the point where people would be turning in their RFPs.
If it is done now, or in a month or two, it is nothing that is going to affect the RFP process. He asked if he was
understanding that timeline correctly. Somebody can’t wait around to put in their RFP until they see what happens
with the zoning. They are going to have to be developing it already.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
33
McClemans agreed with Brunner. The flexibility to look at what is available makes it work better and will get you a
better result. The PDD leaves you waiting to see if it would be a B2, B3 or whatever. It does have flexibility, and a
lot of good things, but you are asking for the best proposal you can get.
Whaley responded with the people bringing in the proposal with the amendment on it, that way if they are looking at a
certain project, they could contact Dan Hansen and visit with him so that he would have the knowledge of what zoning
would be needed. That was just an opening step to get more people interested in this property so we can get it taken
care of by the end of the year.
Bezdichek wants all to understand that he will be voting against the amendment and will be voting against the motion
because of this 50 minute conversation on a piece of property that we don’t own. He cannot understand why we take
so much time when the SDDOT could be doing it.
On the amendment, Bezdicheck and Bartley voted no; Reed, Brunner, McClemans, and
Whaley voted yes; amendment passes.
On the main motion as amended, to direct the City Manager and BEDC Executive Director,
Al Heuton, with City Attorney Britzman’s legal advice, to put the proposal process in place
and to bring proposals back to the council by the first meeting in December, and
recommend to the Planning Commission to change the zoning from a PDD, Bezdicheck
voted no; Bartley, McClemans, Whaley, Brunner and Reed voted yes; motion passes.
Preliminary discussion to schedule 2009 Goal Setting Retreat. Reed asked the council to let
staff know what days of the week will definitely not work for them. Want to have this process done
by the end of February. Bartley would like to include the public sector to that format either in a
morning or afternoon. All agreed the facilitator from last year worked well. Weldon will see if he is
available.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager responded to questions pertaining to the action
items on the agenda.
City Clerk Report. Bonnie Foster, Deputy City Clerk, provided a briefing on upcoming invitations
and obligations.
City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Bartley and Whaley both
requested discussion regarding a policy on tax increment financing districts. Weldon stated the draft
TIF policy is almost completed and will be added as a regular agenda item for the October 28th
meeting.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Agenda item #16A, report on the Long-Term Care Task Force meeting was
added to the agenda. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans to approve the
agenda as amended, which included:
A Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action to approve the August 12, September 9 and September 23 City Council
minutes.
C. Action on Resolution No. 85-08, revising fees for various city services.
RESOLUTION NO. 85-08
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
34
A RESOLUTION REVISING FEES
OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA.
WHEREAS the fines, fees, and procedures pertaining to services of the City of Brookings shall be
revised and adopted annually,
AND WHEREAS the City of Brookings requires weed removal, the Parks service fees shall be
adopted,
AND WHEREAS street and sidewalk snow removal is required under Section 74-212, Article 5 of
Chapter 74, the Street Department service fees shall be adopted under Section 74-213,
AND WHEREAS the Engineer Department building permit fees required under service fees shall
be adopted, under Section 22-35, Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings
shall be revised,
AND WHEREAS planning and zoning application fees required under Section 66-3 of Chapter 66
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings shall be revised,
AND WHEREAS the Code Enforcement Ordinance 33-08 was adopted, the Code Enforcement
fees shall be adopted,
AND WHEREAS the Airport Board is recommending fees for land leases and fuel flowage the fees
shall be adopted,
AND WHEREAS the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings under Section 34-4, Article 1 of
Chapter 34, fees for services by the Fire Department shall be adopted,
BE IT RESOLVED that the fees be adopted as follows:
Parks, Recreation, & Forestry
Weed Control plus contractor cost $25.00
Mowing 1st hour $60.00
each additional hour or fraction $35.00
each additional hour large area $50.00
Brookings Street Department
Sidewalk Snow Removal
--First Offense
$100.00/Hr (1 Hr Minimum)
Plus Sales Tax
Sidewalk Snow Removal
--Repeat Offense
$150.00/Hr (1 Hr Minimum)
Plus Sales Tax
Sign Repairs
--Traffic Accidents
--Vandalism
Replacement Cost, Plus Labor, Sales Tax, and
Excise Tax
Street Repairs Replacement Cost for Materials
Brookings City Engineer’s Department
Residential Building Permit Fees:
The base valuation to determine permit fees for residential buildings and additions are based on a dollar per
square foot schedule per the following. The bid price must be quoted for renovations or remodels.
Dwellings: Single-family dwellings, duplexes, townhouses:
Finished habitable space per square foot $65.00
Finished basements per square foot $24.00
Unfinished space (basement and upper levels) per square foot $18.00
Attached garages per square foot $20.00
Detached garages per square foot $18.00
Building Permit Fee Schedule
Group R-3 and U Occupancies Only:
Total Valuation Fees
$1.00 - 1,200.00 $20.00
$1,200.01 – 2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500 plus $1.50 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to
and including $2,000, for valuations in excess of $1,100.
$2,000.01 - 25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof,
to and including $25,000.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
35
$25,000.01 – 50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,000.01 - 100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $100,000.
$100,000.01 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof.
Commercial Building Permit Fees:
Commercial Building Permit Fee Schedule
Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M, S, Group R Division 1’s and Division 2’s (including Group U’s accessory
to the R-1 and R-2 occupancies):
Total Valuation Fees
$1 - 700.00 $20.00
$700.01 to 2,000.00 For values in excess of $700.00, $15.00 for the first $500.00, plus $2.00 for each
additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2,000.01 to 25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and including $25,000.
$25,000.01 to 50,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25,000 plus $6.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof,
to and including $50,000.
$50,000.01 to 100,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50,000 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof,
to and including $100,000.
$100,000.01 to 500,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100,000 plus $3.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $500,000.00
$500,000.01 to 1,000,000.00 $2,039.50 for the first $500,000 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00
$1,000,000.00 and up $3,539.50 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction
thereof.
Other Inspections and Fees:
Inspections outside normal business hours per hour (minimum charge of one hour) $45.00
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated per hour (minimum charge of 1/2
hour)
$45.00
Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of Section R108 IRC and 108 IBC per hour $45.00
Driveway, demolition, window replacement and other minor construction per permit $25.00
Inspection fees assessed for moving of house $50.00
Planning and Zoning
Change of Zone $230.00
Planned Development District $230.00
Final Development Plan $100.00
Major Amendment $230.00
Minor Amendment $75.00
Board of Adjustment $100.00
Preliminary Plats $150.00
Final Plats $100.00
Vacation $150.00
I-1R Site Plan $100.00
Conditional Use $175.00
Zoning & Use Registration Permit $ 50.00
Rental License
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
36
--per structure $15.00
--for each dwelling unit for building with 7 or fewer units $2.00
--for each dwelling unit for buildings with 8 or more units $1.00
Annual License for Leases Dwelling
Lease Building/in part or whole $15.00
Leased dwelling/7 units or less charge per unit within a building $2.00
Leased dwelling/8 units or more charge per unit within a building $1.00
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement Investigation per hour (1 hour minimum) $45.00
Industrial Lands
Crop Land Lease Based on Bid
(current lease: $105/acre crop, $40/acre hay land)
Airport Fees
Land Lease per square foot $.11
Fuel Flowage per gallon
per gallon
FBO: $0.06
Others: $0.06
Crop land Lease Based on Bid
(current lease: $72/acre crop, $40/acre hay land)
Brookings City Fire Department
Fire Protection Systems Fees
Fire Sprinkler Systems $75.00 plus $.45 per sprinkler head
Retrofitted Fire Sprinkler Systems $75.00 plus $.45 per sprinkler head
Kitchen Hood Extinguishing Systems $90.00
Kitchen Hood Extinguishing System Modification $45.00
Clean Agent or other Total Flooding System per square foot of
covered area $.20
Fire Alarm Systems $75.00 + $.45 each initiation &
signaling device
Fire Alarm System Modifications $37.50 + $.45 each initiation &
signaling device
False Fire Alarm Calls when trucks roll
$0.00 First Call
$50.00 Second Call
$100.00 Third Call
Flammable & Combustible Liquids
Flammable & Combustible Liquids $90.00
Flammable & Combustible Liquids Modifications $45.00
Site Plan Review
Site Plan Review per hour (one hour minimum) $45.00
Inspections outside of normal business hours per hour (two hour
minimum) $45.00
Re-inspection per hour (one hour minimum) $45.00
D. Action on Resolution No. 86-08, a Resolution setting forth a schedule of proposed
Fines, Fees and Procedures pertaining to the keeping and control of animals in the
City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Resolution No. 86-08
A Resolution setting forth a schedule of Proposed Fines, Fees and Procedures
pertaining to the Keeping and Control of Animals in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
37
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the
following Schedule of Proposed Fines, Fees and Procedures shall be effective as of the
date of this Resolution for all violations of Ordinances set forth herein.
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED FINES, FEES AND PROCEDURES
Section Offense Fine/Fee/Procedure
14-2 Unwanted animals. $10.00 per head acceptance fee
14-3 Disturbance of peace. $25.00
14-4 Animals on school grounds property or recreation
areas.
$25.00
14-6 Number of pets limited. $20.00
14-7 Unattended animals in standing or parked vehicles. $50.00
14-8 Stray, abandoned or unkept animals. $25.00
14-9 Public nuisance. $25.00
14-41 Cruelty to animals generally. $100.00
14-42 Teasing, baiting or harassing. $25.00
14-43 Humane care of animals. $25.00
14-44 Poisoning of animals. $100.00
14-45 Instigating or allowing fights between animals. $200.00
14-47 Restraint of animal in a vehicle. $25.00
14-83 Swine. $25.00 per head
14-85 Keeping of bees. $50.00
14-87 Livestock running at large. $25.00 per head
14-88 Fowl at large. $25.00 per head
14-89 Picketing. $25.00
14-121 Dogs running at large. 1st License $10.00
1st Unlicensed $25.00
2nd $35.00
3rd and subsequent offenses $50.00
14-122 Impoundment of dogs. $20.00 per impoundment
14-123 Disturbance of the peace. $25.00
14-125 Defecation disposal. $25.00
14-126 Vicious or biting dogs. 1st offense $100.00
2nd offense $200.00
3rd offense $200.00 and Animal forfeited
14-127 Guard dogs. $50.00 failure to post warning
14-153 Rabies vaccination required. $50.00
14-154 Fee. $5.00 Altered & Have Proof
$10.00 Unaltered
14-157 Dog or cat to wear tag. $10.00
14-182 Impoundment fees. $20.00 per head
$10.00 per day feed/care
14-187 Pickup and transportation fee. $25.00 per animal
14-221 Registration required. $50.00 failure to register
14-223 Running at large. 1st Offense $100.00
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
38
2nd Offense $200.00
3rd Offense $200 and Animal forfeited
14-224 Prohibited generally. $100.00 & Seizure of animal
14-227 Owner to report escape of dangerous animals or
animals not indigenous to State.
$100.00
14-230 Animals declared as a biting, dangerous or vicious
animal prohibited.
$100.00
E. Action on Resolution No. 87-08, setting the Unit Financial Charge for 2009 Storm
Drainage Fees.
Resolution No. 87-08
Setting the Unit Financial Charge for 2009 Storm Drainage Fees
WHEREAS, Chapter 72, Section 72-1 (b), of Code of Ordinances for the City of Brookings,
provides for setting the unit financial charge of Storm Drainage, by Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the unit financial charge shall be .00036 for
Storm Drainage purposes.
F. Action on Resolution No. 88-08, authorizing the City Manager to sign a Wine
Operating Agreement renewal for Old Sanctuary.
Resolution No. 88-08
Old Sanctuary Wine Operating Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED by the city of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby approves
a Lease Agreement for a Wine Operating Management Agreement between the City of Brookings
and the Old Sanctuary, Dennis Bielfeldt, owner, for the purpose of a manager to operate the on-sale
establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at the Old Sanctuary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of ten years with a renewal in five (5) years.
G. Action on bids for snow removal equipment for Street Department.
Bids were opened on September 23 for the annual snow removal equipment bid awards.
Three (3) Blades with wings: Bowes Construction was awarded bids on their motor
graders with hourly rates of $145.00 (with chains) and $135.00 (no chains).
One (1) 3- to 6-Yard Loader: Bowes Construction was awarded the bid on their 5-
cubic yard loader with an hourly rate of $140.00.
One (1) Loader with Reversible Blade: Prunty Construction was awarded the bid on
their JD624H reversible plow with an hourly rate of $175.00.
Twelve (12) End-Dump Trucks: Prussman Contracting was awarded the bid for 4
vehicles, # 20 for $95/hr, #21 for $95/hr, #22 for $95/hr, #23 for $95/hr; GCC Ready
Mix was awarded for 2 vehicles, #5050 for $110.00/hr and $5060 for $110.00/hr.;
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
39
Bowes Construction was awarded the bid for 3 vehicles, #T7 for $90/hr, #T23 for
$90/hr and #T24 for $90/hr; and Prunty Construction was awarded bid for 3 vehicles,
#28 for $90/hr, #29 for $90/hr, and #24 $90/hr. No other bids were received.
Airport Snow Removal: No bids were received for Airport snow removal.
On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried.
Presentation of Bike Route Proposal by SDSU Student Senate. Chris Daugaard, President of
the SDSU Student Association and SA Vice-President Eric Hansen gave the following presentation
to the City Council.
They would for the City Council to look at the ideas of bike lanes in the city. They have come up
with a proposal for the Council to consider.
Phase I would include:
• 7th Ave. to Medary Ave. along 11th St. (Berg & Bailey Halls to Medary Ave.)
• North Campus Drive to 8th St. along Medary Ave. (campus thoroughfare)
• Western Ave. to 20th Ave. along 8th St. (run the length of 8th St. connecting many
neighborhoods with the intersections of 8th St. / Medary Ave. and 8th St. / 16th Ave.)
• 8th St. to 3rd St. along 20th Ave. (connecting the neighborhoods further south to 8th St.)
• 9th St. to 11th St. along 22nd Ave. (connecting the Blue apartments to 11th St.)
• 16th Ave. to 22nd Ave. along 11th St. (brining the 22nd Ave. traffic to the NE corner of
campus)
• 3rd St. to 9th St. along 12th Ave. (providing for an alternative North/South route keeping
bikes off of Medary Ave.)
• 1st Ave. to Medary Ave. along Harvey Dunn St.
Daugaard explained they are trying to link with major transportation avenues to hit strategic points
on campus. The routes have been designed to hit the major University residential areas for students
and others that flow in to the university community, and also to help provide funnels from other
areas of the community.
The University Plan. This plan was developed working with the SDSU Physical Plant. Bicycle
routes will be utilizing existing wider sidewalks, and will be widening some sidewalks to
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Currently, campus has around 1,200 spots for bicycles
in bike racks and on any given day those racks are 75% full. Thirty locations for additional bike
racks have been identified, which is an additional 804 spots of capacity. By this time next year, there
will be bike racks to accommodate 2,000 bikes on campus.
Proposed Complete Plan for the City of Brookings. This plan was drawn up by a former Student’s
Association Senator and member of the Transportation Committee, Andrew Natzel. This is a
proposed conceptual idea how to move bike traffic through the City of Brookings, hitting all major
locations. This is a long-term goal Brookings could strive for, one that connects both the
North/South and East/West parts of the city together in an integrated bicycle transportation
system.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
40
Phase One Cost. They used the Safe Routes to School Grant estimates of $4/square foot for the
painting and striping of lines, along with the cost for accessories such as stencils and bike racks, and
put together those numbers for a cost estimate for this project.
Dean Kattleman, SDSU Physical Plant Director, if given permission, is willing to do the striping of
several of the adjacent city streets by campus out of his own budget and with his own striping crew.
Those streets would be Medary Ave. from 8th St. to North Campus Drive, 11th St. from Medary Ave.
to 7th Ave., 8th St. from Medary Ave. to 16th Ave., and 11th St. and 22nd Ave. over to 11th St. and 16th
Ave. The cost of striping would be $38,016. With the funding the University is doing for their own
streets and sidewalks, additional bike racks, it totals to $110,572.00 worth of contributions SDSU is
willing to make to this project, which leaves approximately $68,000 for the rest of Phase I to be
covered by the city or other individuals or entities. Total Phase I cost is $178,656.00 using the
estimates of the Safe Routes to School.
This is a list of the main routes in the long-term plan, not including the alternative routes:
• 3rd St. and Main Ave. to 3rd St. and 22nd Ave.
• 8th St. So. and 22nd Ave. to 8th St. Sol. And Main Ave.
• 12th St. So. and Main Ave. to 12th St. So. and 22nd Ave.
• 6th St. and Main Ave. to 8th St. and Main Ave.
• 11th St. and 7th Ave. to 3rd St. and 7th Ave.
• 2nd St. So. and 7th Ave. to 12th St. So. and 7th Ave.
• 8th St. So. and Medary Ave. to 15th St. So. and Medary Ave.
• 3rd St. and 12th Ave. to Orchard Dr. and 12th Ave.
• 3rd St. and 17th Ave. to 12th St. So. and 17th Ave.
• Orchard Dr. and Medary Ave. to Orchard Dr. and 22nd Ave.
• 2nd St. and 6th Ave. to 2nd St. and 7th Ave.
• 3rd St. and 6th Ave. to 2nd St. So. and 6th Ave.
The total cost of these routes is approximately $208,616. The total cost of the entire project is
$287,272. In completing just Phase I, the entire project would be over half-way complete.
Daugaard shared some drawings how the bike lakes would be incorporated onto the streets. Streets
that are wide enough to have the standard 4-foot wide designated bicycle lanes, but some streets are
not wide enough, and therefore would be shared bicycle/vehicle lanes.
Daugaard stated they have been working with Robb Rasmussen, Sioux River Cyclery and Brookings
Transportation Committee member representing the bicycle community on this plan. In November,
there will be a seminar on campus relating to bicycle planning and planning for bicycle
transportation and commuting. Participants will include those who worked on the Sioux Falls bike
lanes and also those who worked on Rapid City’s bike applications.
This type of development is very beneficial for the areas of economic development because it
provides the city with an image of forward-thinking, and provides these types of amenities for
citizens. When you think of places such as Madison, WI, the type of public relations that cities get
from this type of a project is really phenomenal. It has a very positive impact on your community.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
41
There are many organizations whose primary goal is to advance or benefit the health of
communities. The bike trails are a park/recreation type thing. These bike lanes are specifically for
transportation. They are a viable transportation option designed as an alternative to get from Point
A to Point B. In looking at SDSU, it applies very well. It is very attractive for incoming students to
be able to facilitate bicycle traffic the way this would look to do. Parking is a very common problem
at many college campuses. In fact, there are some campuses that will give students a new Trek
bicycle if they leave their cars at home.
Currently, there are people riding across intersections, riding on sidewalks, and darting through
streets. How can you tell someone who is riding on the sidewalk or erratically on the street that they
should be following the rules of the road when they don’t have an area designated for them or
designated as a bicycle route. Having the bike lanes would help designate the flow of traffic. The
bicyclists would know on what streets best facilitate their transit throughout the city, and everyone
else would be aware that is where they will be. Bike Lanes are the safest place for bicyclists to ride
when considering the side of the street and sidewalks. Daugaard has found there is much financial
support in the private sector for a project such as this.
Reed commented on a great proposal and it being the right thing to do in today’s world.
Bezdichek stated he couldn’t be more excited about this. He asked Daugaard and Hansen if they
have anything planned in regards to a bike exchange/bike rental program. Daugaard responded
there is a Student’s Association Committee currently discussing a pilot program, and whether or not
it will be specifically a University Pilot Program. There are a lot of schools that do that, one such
locally is Sioux Fall’s Augustana College where they initiated a green bike program this fall. In
visiting with Dean Kattleman, they found out he had been tossing the bike exchange idea around for
a while, and if it got off the ground on campus, they would be very interested in working with the
city as well.
Weldon commended Daugaard and Hanson on an outstanding job on this report and the
comprehensiveness of it. He asked if on the cost estimates, if the per linear miles were for paint?
Yes. Stencils and racks are listed separately, however signage is not reflected. Daugaard mentioned
talking to Allyn Frerichs and Jackie Lanning and the need for signage and the density of signs.
Some stated one sign/mile, but they see the need for more frequent signage, such as one sign every
few blocks. This is a variable that can be determined as the project ensues.
Weldon questioned how the routes were chosen. Daugaard stated it was a combination of things.
One of the theories of bicycle trends are they shouldn’t necessarily be pushing bikes off on
secondary streets, because they will be underutilized. Bike transportation is similar to vehicle
transportation, where you try to funnel use on major roadways. They tried to pick a number of
major roadways, particularly around campus. One thought was to keep people off of Medary Ave.
due to the frequent nature of turning off and on Medary Ave…same with 6th Street. They also tried
to minimize the parking issues.
Weldon asked if they looked at connections with the city’s Bike Trail System. Yes, there are at least
four locations where the bicycle routes meet up with the city’s Bike Trail. They also incorporated
the proposed lanes in the Safe Routes to School Grant application.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
42
Jackie Lanning clarified on costs, the $4/square foot was for 3M pavement marking tape. If SDSU
is doing actual pavement painting, the cost would be less. Daugaard added the City of Sioux Falls
spent 39 cents per square foot for painting bike lanes.
Council Discussion: Weldon stated Daugaard and Hanson are working with the Transportation Board and are
intricately involved in the process at that level. He echoes staff support and enthusiasm for the project and views this as
a huge quality of life issue for the community. In terms of health, wellness, and exercise, it’s an outstanding project
and we’re going to do everything we can to get this project done as diligently as possible within their guidelines and
parameters. He suggested continuing to work with the Student’s Association and fine-tune the issues, the routes, and
budgets, and continue to work over the winter months so we are ready to get into a construction phase / identification
phase as soon as possible next spring. There will be some major issues and impact relevant to parking in
neighborhoods. There will have to be a parking process where, once routes are determined, there will need to be some
neighborhood meetings, public hearings held. The City’s Safety Committee and the Traffic Safety Committee will
review this over the winter months. Weldon sees no concern at all with the due diligence to work together to come up
with an absolutely outstanding positive plan that is good for the neighborhoods and try to make everybody happy to the
extent that we possibly can with this project, that we wouldn’t be able to hit the ground running in the spring. He
thinks that is very doable.
ACTION: A Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans, to have city staff and
committees review the plan over the winter and present an executable plan at the first
meeting in March with a goal to have a plan to complete by July 1st. All present voted yes;
motion carried.
Council Discussion continued: Brunner stated that gives time for the proper hearings to be held and to have everything
put together so that when the snow melts in the spring we can get some striping done, some of the bike lanes installed
before the end of the school year for a chance to see some usage and make any needed adjustments during the summer.
Brunner feels this is a good way to get started with Phase I of the project. This also gives some time, depending on how
sales tax is through the end of the year, if there is some surplus as a funding source. This is as something easily
supported and expanded in the future.
Bartley questioned the streets around campus, the residential areas that have a lot of side street parking. This would
involve possibly moving or displacing that parking and pushing it somewhere else. Is that the plan? We can’t have
bike routes with all that parking. The streets are not wide enough.
Jackie Lanning stated some streets really are not wide enough for that. She hasn’t looked into if we can the shared
lane, the car/bike lane with parking, but those are some of the features we will have to flush out. Medary Ave. might
be one of the easier roads to have a route because parking is already eliminated, but most of the other streets do have
parking on one side.
Bartley stated his concern is obviously parking. Parking is at a premium around the University now and it’s always
been an issue for the neighborhoods up to there to push parking even harder. How can you get any more concentrated
than it already is, and we are going to possibly remove some parking in that area for bicycles. Hopefully there won’t be
many cars if there are more bikes, but realistically, you can bring your bike to campus easier than your car. We are
going to have to push that parking somewhere, and how are we going to handle that. Is it going to be a joint effort on
the University’s part to provide some more on-campus parking for these cars, or are we going to have to do something
on the city side to provide more parking if we are going to take it away? The people on the routes would love to have
the cars gone and the bike routes in place, but what about the people just off of the route on the side streets as we have
pushed the parking on them. Obviously this needs to be studied, we don’t want to give up one problem and create
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
43
another.
Lanning stated it would be a philosophical decision on how to treat parking by campus. Those streets are a high
priority for uses due to the density and those heading to campus. She doesn’t know if SDSU’s growth has proposed
future parking lots within the boundaries, but can certainly explore that. On the city side, there isn’t a proposal for an
additional parking lot. If you remove parking from one street, it will be shoved to different city streets. Bartley
anticipates some lively discussion over these issues. If it can be solved up front, it will help.
Reed stated SDSU stands firm that there has always been plenty of parking on campus, it’s just that it’s not
necessarily located where people want it. Hopefully, someone would throw their bike in the trunk or whatever, and
park on the outlots, and then ride their bike around campus. You will find living in the neighborhood, during the day
the parking increases from the students that don’t necessarily want to pay for on-campus parking or the commuters,
and at night it decreases. The bike routes could help with those students that instead of bringing their car close to
campus they would bring their bikes.
Bartley stated something that should also be looked at in depth, is the timeframe bicycles would most likely be used in
volume. There are some who will bike year round, if you provide the lanes and keep the snow off them so they can see
them. But we are talking about a certain amount of time on campus that bicycles are probably not going to be a huge
traffic issue, the parking is gone permanently. To coexist with that, once you take that parking out and make it a
bike route, it is there year-round. You can’t specifically say the parking increases September 15 through the first
snowfall and bikes aren’t riding and well you could park on the street again until the snow is gone in March. Those
are issues where once you make that decision or remove that parking, it is a year-round decision as well as it should be.
You have to balance those concerns with adequate parking. Bartley would love to see the University address that
parking issue on campus if they could or if there’s a way that they could. It may take a little pressure from the
Student’s Association to do that, but technically it is not a city problem, we already provide the parking, we’d be
happy to provide the safe routes instead of the parking, but we are going to push these people somewhere and we are
going to have a certain time frame of the year where they won’t be using the bike routes, and those people are wanting
to park back on those streets and are not going to be to do so.
When looking at the striping, Whaley stressed the need to look at what section of town is being chip sealed, so the bike
lanes are painted and 2 weeks later the Street Dept. is grinding it all up. There is also the need to look into the
budget to be sure what it costs. If the street is on a 5 or 7 year rotation, it is actually going to add cost to that budget
because the bike lanes will have to be repainted/recreated.
Reed stated he has been working with Daugaard and Hanson on funding. There are very positive remarks back that
people want to help out with this. He is guessing we would get into some sort of matching fund situation.
Resolution No. 89-08 – Street Vacation. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. 89-08,
vacating 4th Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. No public comment. A motion was made
by Bartley, seconded by Brunner to approve Resolution No. 89-08. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
Resolution No. 89-08
STREET VACATION
WHEREAS, a petition to vacate has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Brookings,
and
WHEREAS, the petition was filed in proper form and signed by one hundred percent
(100%) of the adjacent property owners.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
44
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brookings:
That the portion of 4th Street abutting Lot 101, Block 1, First Addition and the north 100 feet of
Lots 1 and 2, and all of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, First Addition located between 5th Avenue
and 6th Avenue is vacated subject to a right-of-way easement over the north half of the street to be
vacated.
LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective on June 1, 2009.
Resolution No. 90-08 – lease real property. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. 90-08,
a resolution of intent to lease real property to a private entity. No public comment. A motion was
made by McClemans, seconded by Whaley to approve Resolution No. 90-08. All present voted yes;
motion carried.
Resolution No. 90-08
Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Entity
BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that
the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Lease with Mike and Sarah Wilson, for a period of one
year and pertaining to the following described property:
Lot One (1) and the East Ten Feet (E 10') of Lot Two (2) in Block Thirteen (13) of East Acres
Second Addition to the City of Brookings, County of Brookings, State of South Dakota;
Also described as follows: Lot One (1) and the Easterly Ten Feet (Etrly 10') of Lot Two (2) adjacent
to Lot One (1) in Block Thirteen (13) of East Acres Second Addition to the City of Brookings,
County of Brookings, State of South Dakota.
BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on this
14th day of October, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons
were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property.
Lease Agreement – 2150 Derdall Drive. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner, to
authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Mike and Sarah Wilson for the
rental of property at 2150 Derdall Drive. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 38-08 – Alcoholic Beverages. A motion was made by Brunner,
seconded by Whaley, to approve Ordinance No. 38-08, 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. All present voted yes; motion carried.
2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 39-08 – conditional use. A motion was made by McClemans,
seconded by Bartley, to approve Ordinance No. 39-08, an Ordinance establishing a conditional use
to establish an apartment on the W ½ of the W ½ of Lots 1–4, excluding Lot H-1, Block 11,
Skinners Second Addition (1016 6th Street). All present voted no; motion failed.
2nd Reading - Ordinance No. 40-08 – rezoning. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by
Whaley, to approve Ordinance No. 40-08, An Ordinance rezoning Lot 3, Nelson Eighth Addition
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
45
from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1B District (15th Street South and Medary Avenue
area). All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 91-08 – Wine Operating Agreement. A public hearing was held on Resolution
No. 91-08, approving an On-Off Sale Wine License for the Brookings Hy-Vee store and authorizing
the City Manager to enter into an operating agreement. A motion was made by McClemans,
seconded by Brunner, to approve Resolution No. 91-08.
Resolution No. 91-08
Wine Operating Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED by the city of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby approves
a Lease Agreement for a Wine Operating Management Agreement between the City of Brookings
and the Brookings Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22nd Avenue, Doug Dell, Manager, for the purpose of a
manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings
at the Hy-Vee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement on
behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of ten years with a renewal in five (5) years.
Discussion: Dick Stoffer, representing Hy-Vee, stated they are desirous of obtaining a new off-sale wine license. He
stated Hy-Vee would not operate the on-sale operation, just the off-sale/package wine. The wine section will be
adjacent to and approximately the same size as the beer section. They want to sell a variety of wines including South
Dakota/local wines.
Council Discussion: Bartley clarified this bill was passed in legislature this past year. It allows the on sale, whether or
not it is used. It is a right, if we issue this license, for them to have on-sale. If you look at our City Ordinances, we
certainly don’t want on-sales in grocery stores or convenience stores. He stressed this isn’t the right vehicle for this type
of a license. If a grocery store or other entity wants an off-sale wine license, then we should really go to the legislature
and have that type of a license created so that it can be issued. This is an instance where we are taking a license and
trying to make use of part of it, the off-sale part, but we are saying we won’t use the on-sale portion of it. However,
when you grant this license, understand that the on-sale can be used at any time and we would have no recourse to
prevent that. He doesn’t think that Ordinances allow us to issue a license that allows on-sale of wine in a store. You
could take a grocery store that has a banquet room and say we’re not going to allow on-sale, but they get a request for a
reception or a party, and suddenly there’s use for an on-sale wine license. Those rights can’t be taken away later.
Bartley will not support this license issuance. It allows on-sale and on-sale isn’t something we want to have at our
grocery stores or convenience stores or anywhere else in town for that matter. Without the proper license, he is not
trying to pick on this particular applicant, but thinks the effort needs to be made to go back to the legislature or ask
for them to grant off-sale only type of licenses. We need to give careful consideration that the on-sale could be used. We
will have other applicants if we start this and thinks it is a slippery slope.
Bezdichek stated Hy-Vee’s Attorney just made comments that this is not the way they are going to use the license and
he respects the opinion of their attorney, and believes what he has said. If you go back in history, remember the
Perkins liquor license in order to allow smoking in their restaurants. They never intended to serve wine or beer, which
the majority do not, all they wanted was to allow smoking. This isn’t the first incident in which a license has been
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
46
issued for a particular use. He respects the opinion of the attorney, and if the attorney for Hy-Vee says this is what
they are going to do, he 100% believes that until proven differently. He strongly supports this.
Weldon stated SDCL 35-2-1.2 offers two reasons that allow you to turn down a license. One of those is on location
and recommended the council think about that before they vote. He would be remise in his responsibilities if he didn’t
raise a concern about the impact that this could have competitively on the Brookings Municipal Liquor store.
Bartley stated he is not concerned with competition for the Liquor store, he is all for competition, and the city will get
the override anyway. However, not trying to be disrespectful for Hy-Vee, he.can’t look at the applicant and say that’s
the only criteria used. You have to be very cognizant of the fact they can say what they are doing and believe them. He
doesn’t disbelieve them at all, however, it is not binding and it can change. Decisions are made based on what the law
allows, not what someone promises. You have to be very careful that you don’t do things based on what someone just
tells you, you have to base it on facts and law. This particular case doesn’t quite fit. In regards to the Perkins case
Councilman Bezdichek referred to, it was a beer/wine on-sale license specifically for the non-smoking/smoking issue.
However, those licenses that are in those establishments, some of them are serving beer and wine because they are
allowed to do so and we didn’t have an issue with that. This isn’t apples to oranges. The City Ordinances say on-sale
agreements may not be issued to convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations or other stores where groceries or gasoline
is sold. We have some pretty good grounds not to grant this. It is not a competitive nature that he is concerned, it is
just that this doesn’t fit. Get the right vehicle thru the legislative process. We’ve certainly done that already with
certain other liquor licenses. You can’t pick and choose a powerful law and use however you can.
All present voted yes, except Bartley and Whaley voted no; motion carried.
Resolution No. 92-08 – Change Order. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by
McClemans, to approve Resolution No. 92-08, a Resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO #6)
for 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Resolution No. 92-08
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order #6 (CCO#6) 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 6:
By mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Owner, construction for the 2008 season
will not proceed beyond station 12+90. The owner agrees to suspend contract time starting
at the completion of the work currently underway. Contract time will start again on May 1,
2009 (tentatively). Both parties agree that liquidated damages will be suspended once
contract time is suspended however liquidated damages will be assessed for all days beyond
October 30, 2008 for the 2008 construction season, up to the date work is suspended for
2008. Liquidated damages will begin again once contract time is started in 2009. The
Owner agrees that Liquidated Damages will not be assessed for days after October 30, 2008
where extreme weather conditions prevent the Contractor from working. Determination for
these weather days will be at the sole discretion of the City Engineer.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
47
Discussion: Weldon gave an explanation of the proposed change order. This change order is
geared primarily toward scheduling issues. The deadline for completion of the project is the end of
this month. The contract says that liquidated damages will be in effect for any day that construction
goes beyond that date. The amount of demolition work that needs to be undertaken yet involves
the intersection of Main Ave. and 3rd St. proceeding on Main south towards approximately half a
block towards GP Auto, and the entrance to the City Park & Rec Building. The work there is not
nearly as extensive as what we’ve experienced in the last three blocks. We collectively wanted to
recommend to you that it is in the best interest of the downtown not to do anymore excavation or
tear up anything else we can’t finish before the deadline. What we decided to do is ask you instead
that we have the contractor finish up the amount of work that has been opened, the amount of
work that is under demolition right now, which basically is up and to approximately in front of
Cook’s Kitchen/Skinners. Button up the project up for winter months and resume the contract
schedule when weather and ground conditions are much more favorable on or around May 1, 2009.
What that means to the contract, is that for any work that is done after Oct 30th, to finish up/to
button up what is currently open, liquidated damages will be in effect. We do expect there may be
some concrete flatwork, some sidewalk sections that will need to be poured after this deadline,
which means liquidated damages will be in effect. The good news is that weather conditions are
such that we can do concrete work. You can’t do as much asphalt work when the weather turns
colder and the asphalt plant will be closing down soon. We are still planning on finishing up all of
the asphalt work on everything by end of this contract period, by October 30th. The contractor will
come back in the spring, on or around May 1st, scheduling around SDSU Graduation. They are
estimating another 4-6 weeks of work at that time to finish up that half block. For every one of
those days work is in progress, liquidated damages will also be in effect. The good news is that we
will have the project buttoned up, there will be driving surfaces, sidewalks, curbs and gutters in
place. There will still be some complications with regards to some lights and things like that, but
nothing that is going to be a hindrance to downtown. The contract costs of the project will be
reduced due to liquidated damages which will be taken out of the contractor’s final payment before
we settle up.
Reed asked Weldon for clarification of the items that are the city’s responsibility. Weldon stated
there are street furniture, bike racks and tree plantings to go in next spring. Trees are in the first
block, but obviously the rest of them will have to wait. The contractor still has to put in the
concrete planters at the intersections and the contractor will be responsible for the street lights and
the signal lighted intersections. Lanning clarified it would be one signalized intersection at 3rd St. &
Main Ave. to be completed in the spring of next year, with the other intersections with stop signs at
this point.
Frerichs stated some of the street furniture will be in place before winter, but there may be some
paver brick that won’t be. The prefabricated planter walls are scheduled to be delivered in October.
They can be installed, but there will not be time to put all the soil in and do the shrub and landscape
plantings on the bumpouts. This will have to wait until spring. They will be planting the trees in the
sidewalk tree gate locations.
Britzman suggested a point of clarification that might be added to the change order; the number of
days for which liquidated damages will be assessed for 2008 shall be determined within 30 days of
the last date of the 2008 construction season. If there are going to be potentially liquidated damages,
both the contractor and the owner would want to determine what those would be sooner than later.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
48
Britzman stated since there will be a suspension over the winter, rather than have that potential issue
linger without any efforts to resolve it, why not attempt to make that determination for the 2008
year. Of course there would have to a similar determination in 2009, but it would seem to move the
project along if that could be addressed. It is not mandatory, and he doesn’t think that it would
affect the rest of the language here. It doesn’t indicate what happens in that event beings that that
issue should be addressed and this might be a reasonable place to put that suggestion.
A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans, to approve the Change Order as
presented to the council tonight.
Council Discussion: Whaley asked if this will have to go back to Winters for discussion. Weldon stated it would in
order for him to agree to it. In order to bring back to council after discussion with Winters…that would be another
two weeks away and we’ll be done with construction for the year.
Britzman clarified the change order does address liquidated damages in several places, but it doesn’t impose any
outcome or remedies. Beyond what is in the contract, it gives a time because there is a suspension as to whether we wait
until the very end of the contract like we would typically do, but with the suspension, it does provide an opportunity to
at least minimize that issue to keep it from lingering, because then you are looking back 4-6 months to resolve that
particular issue which may be more difficult.
Weldon stated we will have calendar documenting the days in which it will be in effect. We know what that is now
from the very beginning of the project. He agrees it is not a material change, just adds clarification, but whether the
contractor and his attorney will agree he doesn’t know.
Britzman responded that this is just a suggestion in case it was viewed as being helpful to the process. On the other
hand, if it is going to be more problematic, it is not mandatory, because we have contract documents that will allow us
to compute this all at one time at the end of the contract.
Public Discussion: Robb Rasmussen, Sioux River Cyclery, is confused about whether the street
lights will be installed, whether the planters are going to be in and if the sidewalks will be buttoned
up. There are several potential places for people to fall, slip and trip. If things aren’t buttoned up, it
could be a real difficult issue for snow removal and he is looking for some clarification as to what is
really going to be done. Weldon stated the sidewalk work, the flatwork, the concrete work is
supposed to be done. Even if goes after October 30th, they will continue to work in the colder
weather if they have to and they can do that with certain construction methods and it will be
subjected to liquidated damages.
Lanning specified on the street lights, that the light poles themselves will be installed on the blocks
that are open, which will likely occur in November. The planters will be placed in November as
well. Even if the weather turns very cold, they can place those as they are bracketed. The paver
bricks should also be able to be installed.
Rasmussen asked when the bike racks would be put back. Frerichs thought they could be installed
prior to next spring, as they are surface mount.
Weldon stated they will do what we can with, the bicycle racks. Form has to follow function here in
terms of the process and sequence and weather will determine that. He asked Lanning if the poles,
included the fixtures. Yes, pole, light, fixture, turned on, in entirety.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
49
Dennis Willert, Willert Chiropractic, wanted to know when the 500 block between Wells Fargo and
Sioux River Cyclery will be accepted by the city as city-owned. Weldon stated the plan is that once
Main St. gets the final lift of asphalt, and as soon as it can be inspected, the city will take it over and
it will be the city’s responsibility. He expects that to happen by the end of October.
Weldon commented he appreciated Steve’s suggestion to clarify this. It is a great suggestion he
would like to do, but he has concerns and doesn’t want to bog this down and give the contractor
another reason to not sign this. The contractor has agreed to the language provided here. Weldon
asked the council to not accept Steve’s suggestion as he feels we are adequately covered. The City
Engineer has been calculating all the days that would be subject to liquidated damages and he feels
confident the city is going to be protected.
Brunner withdrew his motion to accept Steve’s suggestion. McClemans was okay with withdrawing
the motion.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
TID #4 – Development Agreement. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by McClemans,
to approve the Development Agreement for a Tax Increment Plan for Tax Increment District
Number Four (TID #4). All present voted yes; motion carried.
Weldon gave a brief overview of this project. One issue with the project, developers are asking for
some latitude as to house size. They want to incorporate into the project a model that is 861
finished square feet, whereas previously talked about a model with 1,200-1,400 square feet. The 861
square foot model is a split-level, which does not include foyer/entryway or finished lower level.
Weldon feels this is a house that is a bit small for the market. But again, on a pay-as-you go tax
increment project, taxes will still be due and it is still going to generate increment as well, which
alleviates that concern. If the developers think that they can market homes of that size, then they
should probably be able to do that. This is something different from the previous tax increment
projects considered for housing and thought it merited the council’s attention.
Wayne Wagner, Oakwood Equity Group, developer wants to make sure there was understanding of
the makeup of the development that they are doing. The financial analysis and payback of the TIF
is based on an average / appraised price of $150,000. Their upper limit is $160,000. Throughout
the planning process, they anticipated having some homes on the lower end of the scale, and some
on the upper end of that scale. They looked quite closely at the Housing study done which was
done last fall with the City. With the earning power of individuals within the community, what they
can afford in a mortgage, and what is available, the largest gap is in the $120-140,000 range.
Based on needing to pay back financing for the TIF, they needed a mix a little higher than that level.
The plan is not to fill the entire 33 lots with homes of this size, but maybe 8-12%. They are
currently building eight of these homes in the Lass Addition south of Brookings. Affordable
housing doesn’t need to mean ‘cheap’. The amenities, trim, quality, laminate, fixturing will be
identical to these homes, they will just be smaller. This is a price range that is very much needed in
Brookings. To meet the intent of the TIF, they would be remise to not address that price point if
they could.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
50
They are also researching different building methods. The cost of a home is not only what one pays,
but also the upkeep. They are working with the University on multiple building methods where they
are going to see what is the most cost effective way to build these homes, as well as what homes are
going to be the most energy efficient. They are on track right now to have each of these methods
certified as energy-star rated. What the city is investing in is not only affordable housing, but
housing that sets a standard and raises the bar as far as what to expect in the community. There are
two things they are looking to invest with the tax increment finance district funds: 1) being able to
reduce the overall price for the home, 2) investing additional features into the home which will
create energy efficiency, which will really allow a family to fit it within their means going forward.
Affordable does not need to mean ‘cheap’. They want to put a strong quality built home with solid
features, just a little smaller in size. There will be ranges of homes, which will be around that 861
square feet on the opening price point range, and there will be some in the 1,200-1,400 square feet.
Pricing will be determined based on the cost of construction. They plan to build multiple homes at
the same time, which will allow them to get better pricing, based on having a contractor come up
once and do 3 houses at the same time. They will be focusing on efficiency, not only in
construction, but the energy-efficiencies of the home.
Bezdichek asked in regards to energy efficiency, do the builders make the determination whether or
not the home has gas appliances, gas heat or electric. His question is based on the selfishness at
utilities in Brookings is electricity.
In the Lass Addition, they have propane out back, but they will all be electric. Within the city, part
of the study they are doing will tell them the right things to do. They haven’t really figured that one
out as of yet.
Bezdichek asked of the 33 homes to be built, there could be a gas line in the street and it would be
up to homeowner to determine which. Because the city is involved in the TIF district, bringing
electricity there would be an advantage to us. He sees the need to provide that option if the
homeowner wants to hook up.
Wagner stated their intentions are to bring all utilities into the home. They will bring gas and electric
up to the homes. From an energy usage standpoint, to be energy-star rated, there is a HERS rating
to test efficiency of the home. Most of that is on the envelope, as far as how much air is leaking out
and these homes will be 40-60% more efficient than what a baseline home is. That is going to be an
outstanding feature for this development. He is hoping that will develop a new standard in building
homes.
Brunner asked on the pay-as-you-go TIF, if they take the risk for the property tax. He likes the
variety that some of the smaller homes will offer for someone who may be a recent graduate, or
entering the work force. That diversity makes this addition that much stronger.
ADDITION - Long-Term Care Task Force. Reed participated in the first meeting of the Long-
Term Care Task Force. This task force has come together for multiple reasons, one being the
hospital taking a look at what they want to do with their long-term care facility, and also that the
state has quite a bit going on right now with long-term care. We want to make sure that we are in
the driver’s seat with what we would like to do with long-term care. The task force is requesting that
a study be carried out as soon as possible to figure out what the most economical way to deliver
long-term health care in Brookings is.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
51
Al Heuton, BEDC. This task force was created with two (2) representatives each from the City of
Brookings City Council, United Retirement Center Board Members, the Brookings Hospital, and the
Brookings Economic Development Corporation. A couple reasons the group came together was to
take a look at what the state is doing with their task force; looking at long-term care and a future
distribution of nursing homes across the state. We have an interest in that in terms of the
development of a retirement community in the future. We want to monitor that study and any
legislation that would be passed at the state level with regard to future nursing homes. A second
function of that task-force would be a way to bring all parties together to look at the hospital’s
proposal for demolition of the existing nursing home and construction of a new nursing home.
There has been some funding approved to help pay for a consultant to look at what options might
be in place for separate nursing homes within the community and management options whether it
would be separate or joint and what might be the most feasible way to address that. Those are the 2
primary functions of the task force at this point in time.
Reed stated the task force wanted to acknowledge that the study should be directed by someone
other than United Retirement Center or the Brookings Health System to level the playing field about
what is going on and would like the city to do that.
ACTION: A Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, that the City of Brookings
delegates to the BEDC under the auspices of the long-term health care task force to carry
out a study to examine the most economical way to deliver long-term health care in
Brookings with support of the United Retirement Center and the Brookings Health System.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
Reed clarified what they are trying to accomplish here is to give them some authority, other than
those two organizations, to go ahead and report. The City would own the report. Whaley asked
what is going to be the dollar amount on this report. Heuton stated it is unknown. There would be
a Request for Proposal in the conversations held with consultants and they do not know what the
final cost would be.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
52
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John
Deere 544G Loader as surplus property.
Resolution No. 108-08 will declare the 1996 Street Loader surplus. There is a
guaranteed trade allowance for this loader; however, staff feels that a better price can
be obtained through the bid process. The 1996 loader will be replaced with a 2009
John Deere 544K Loader.
RESOLUTION NO. 108-08
DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is the owner of the following described heavy equipment formerly used
at the City of Brookings Street Department:
One (1) 1996 John Deere 544G Loader serial number DW544GD555430
WHEREAS, in the best financial interest, it is the desire of the City of Brookings to sell same as surplus
property;
WHEREAS, the City Manager hereby authorized to appoint three qualified appraisers to appraise the
value of the property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,
that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-13. The 1996 John Deere
544G Loader will be replaced with a 2009 John Deere 544K Loader.
Passed and approved this 9th day of December, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
53
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4D. Action to Approve a Contract with the City Attorney.
The City Attorney’s contract expires on December 31, 2008. Enclosed is a draft
contract for Council review that would provide a two-year contract through December
31, 2010.
The following changes from the current contract have been made:
1. A 4% inflation adjustment for each of the 2 years;
2. For the second year of the Contract, an increase in meetings and dues from
$2000 to $2500. Currently, annual IMLA dues are $625, Annual Meeting
Registration Fees are $636.00, leaving only $739.00 for travel and lodging
expenses for the annual meeting.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
54
Legal Services Agreement
_______________
THE CITY OF BROOKINGS AND STEVEN J. BRITZMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW agree that
the City of Brookings has appointed Steven J. Britzman to serve as City Attorney for a two (2)
year period, commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2010, and the City of
Brookings and Steven J. Britzman desire to set forth the terms of their Agreement concerning
the provision of legal services by Steven J. Britzman as City Attorney as follows:
1. Performance of Legal Services
Steven J. Britzman shall perform all legal services as provided in the "Scope of Services for City
Attorney for City of Brookings" (the "Scope of Services"). A copy of the Scope of Services for
City Attorney is attached hereto. Steven J. Britzman will perform all legal services which shall
include representing the City in Magistrate Court in the enforcement of City Ordinances.
2. Insurance Coverage
Steven J. Britzman shall maintain Attorneys Professional Liability coverage in the amount of One
(1) million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and One (1) million dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate
during the term of this agreement. Steven J. Britzman shall be responsible to pay any deductible
amount under the foregoing coverage.
3. Conflicts of Interest
The parties to this Agreement understand that actual or perceived conflicts of interest are
defined in great detail in the Rules of Professional Responsibility which govern attorneys and
which are a part of the statutes of South Dakota. Accordingly, Steven J. Britzman shall follow
the Rules of Professional Responsibility, immediately disclose to the City Council and City
Manager any conflict or the appearance of a potential conflict, and resolve the issue to the
satisfaction of the City of Brookings and the other client.
4. Compensation for Legal Services
Steven J. Britzman agrees to provide all of the legal services provided in the Scope of Services,
for a monthly sum from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 of Five Thousand Four
Hundred Fourteen and 68/100 ($5,414.68) Dollars, payable on the last day of the month.
For the year beginning January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, Steven J. Britzman shall be
paid a monthly sum of Five Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-one and 26/100 ($5,631.26) Dollars,
payable on the last day of the month.
The hourly rate for other legal services, including those set forth in Item 15 of the Scope of
Services is $125.00 during the term of this Agreement.
The legal services provided by Steven J. Britzman shall be performed as an independent
contractor and Steven J. Britzman shall therefore pay all payroll and business expenses incurred
in providing legal services to the City.
5. Expense Reimbursements, Meetings and Conferences
In addition to the compensation for legal services during the initial year of this Agreement, the
City will provide Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per year for membership in the
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
55
International Municipal Attorneys Association (IMLA) (currently $600.00 per year) and for
Conference registration, travel and lodging for the Annual Meeting of the International
Municipal Lawyers Association which includes at least sixteen hours of continuing education.
During the second year of this Agreement, the annual sum of Two Thousand Dollars
($2,000.00) for IMLA Membership and annual conference shall be increased to Two Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00).
The City Attorney will also be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when required to travel
outside the City of Brookings to other meetings or to perform legal services, provided such
travel is approved by the City Manager in advance of travel.
6. Legal Services not within the Scope of Services
Steven J. Britzman shall first obtain approval of the City to perform any legal services excluded
from the Scope of Services, however Steven J. Britzman and the City agree that it is appropriate
for the City Attorney to be responsive to residents of the city, the media, other municipal
attorneys, municipal league and other public officials where communication or an appropriate
measure of assistance is in the best interest of the City.
Dated this ____day of November, 2008.
STEVEN J. BRITZMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
Steven J. Britzman
Dated this ____day of November, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
56
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CITY ATTORNEY
FOR CITY OF BROOKINGS
THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL PERFORM THE FOLLOWING SERVICES:
1. Legal counsel shall attend all City Council meetings as the legal advisor for the Brookings
City Council, unless the absence is due to vacation or illness or the subject matter does not
require the assistance of counsel.
2. Provide all necessary legal consultation services, including oral and written opinions and
research as requested by the Brookings City Council and the City Manager.
3. Provide legal assistance to the City’s Boards and Commissions except the Utility Board and
Hospital Board as requested by the City Manager and City Council.
4. Provide legal representation to the City in litigation initiated against the City and by the City
in circumstances where the City is not represented by legal counsel assigned by its
insurance company. Legal representation and litigation must be authorized in each instance
by the City Council.
5. Assist in the preparation and review of all contract agreements, resolutions, ordinances and
other legal documents considered, adopted or endorsed by the City.
6. To maintain a working knowledge of Municipal Law on both the State and Federal level.
7. Provide legal representation for the City before administrative bodies upon special request
by the City Council.
8. As requested, review all claims made against the City.
9. Confer with colleagues that specialize in areas of law to establish and verify a basis for legal
proceedings; serve as a liaison between outside legal counsel and City Officials on
specialized legal issues.
10. Prepare a monthly written report on current and on-going activities of the City Attorney’s
Office due at first City Council meeting of the month for the preceding month, together
with a monthly statement of legal services performed which includes a description of the
service and the time required to perform the service.
11. Assist the City Clerk and the private sector firm in Ordinance Codification.
12. The City Attorney will be an advisor to the labor negotiating staff and will review labor
contracts as required or requested.
13. Maintain professional awareness of current literature and changes in law and attending
continuing legal education to ensure the most efficient, cost-effective, and accurate
operation of the City Attorneys Office.
14. Review proposed state legislation affecting the City and prepare or supervise the
preparation of state legislation relating to municipal and city government matters as
directed by the City Council. Consult with City Council, City Manager and department
heads in regard to such legislation and testify before legislative boards as requested.
15. The City Attorney’s basic fee would not include the following services:
a. Litigation
b. Appearance on behalf of the CITY before Courts or administrative bodies (other
than Magistrate Court).
c. Special projects assigned by the CITY to Attorney.
Fees and services in a-c above will be as negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
57
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for
accessible parking violation.
The current fine for illegally parking in an accessible parking space is $25.00. The
maximum fine allowed by state law is $200.00 per violation. Action to approve
Resolution No. 109-08 would increase the fine to $100.00 per violation. City staff
surveyed other First Class South Dakota cities and found that most charge $100 fines.
Further research found that the Brookings $25 fine was established in 1988 and hasn’t
been increased in 20 years.
Shari Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, and the Brookings Committee for People who
have Disabilities are in complete support of this increase. The Committee has also
offered to assist the Police Department in a public education campaign.
RESOLUTION NO. 109-08
RESOLUTION INCREASING FINE FOR
VIOLATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE
WHEREAS, The City of Brookings desires that there be adequate available parking for
persons with disabilities.
WHEREAS, the fine amount for a violation of use of a designated accessible parking
space has not been changed since 1988.
WHEREAS, the current fine amount is $25.00, the State allows $200.00, and most major
cities in South Dakota have a fine of $100.00.
WHEREAS, the Brookings Committee for People Who Have Disabilities supports this
action.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the Brookings Police Dept. requests the fine
amount be raised from $25.00 to $100.00.
Passed and approved this 9th day of November, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_____________________
ATTEST: Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
58
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establishing a house
moving hourly fee for police escort.
The Brookings Police Dept. is called upon to assist with traffic during the moving of a
structure, generally a dwelling. Sometimes the mover gives the Police notice in advance
and sometimes not. The problem arises when it takes most, or all, of the shift to
accommodate a safe move. Traffic in general, traffic lights and rail crossings can cause a
lot of problems during a move, even if not very lengthy. Police presence is needed to
get the move conducted in as safe a manner as possible.
Heretofore, the Police Dept. and/or the City have not been compensated for assisting in
this commercial enterprise.
Putting this resolution into affect, along with other related ones, will give the Police
more advance notice and allow for staffing to be brought in so as not to affect service
for the community while the move is taking place.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
59
RESOLUTION NO. 110-08
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR
MOVING STRUCTURES IN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings desires that there be a safe environment maintained when a
structure is being moved inside the city limits.
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of public safety that Law Enforcement be present during
such a move.
WHEREAS, the presence of Law Enforcement assists with safe traffic flow, especially at large
controlled intersections and railroad crossings.
WHEREAS, sometimes it can take up to three (3) Officers to assist with a safe move of a
structure, which can cause shortages of manpower for other duties and responsibilities.
WHEREAS, the City is not currently compensated for this special circumstance of Police
presence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED, that the City of Brookings shall impose a fee of $50 per
hour for each Officer and patrol car (one unit) and that the contractor or house mover will be
responsible for this fee. That the Officer in charge of the shift will identify how many units are
needed to safely accomplish the move. And, that there will be a two (2) hour minimum for each
unit assigned.
Passed and approved this 9th day of December, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_____________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Attest:
______________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
60
CONSENT AGENDA #4
4G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08, recommending Great
Lakes as the carrier for Essential Air Service.
Essential Air Service Selection (EAS) Process:
The Department of Transportation has accepted bids for the new EAS contract in Brookings,
which will tentatively begin in the spring of 2009. The bids included routes and service
providers. Council action will include a letter of recommendation on the selection of a service
provider for the City of Brookings Essential Air Service.
Essential Air Service Benefits:
The Essential Air Service (EAS) program provides many benefits to the community of Brookings,
however, most go unseen by the public. Essential Air Service puts our airport into a higher class
of airports with an opportunity for a larger amount of discretionary grant funding from the
federal government to improve our asset. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Department of Transportation (DOT), have invested over $1.2 million dollars into the
Brookings Regional Airport to assist us with meeting our Part 139 requirements (rules for
airport with airlines). These funds were used to make apron improvements, build the Airport
Fire and Rescue building, and purchase the Airport fire truck. The FAA has also expended funds
to Brookings to improve the pavement for Runway 12/30. Essential Air Service provides an
economic advantage to businesses and citizens, offering more choices for travel.
Bids:
The DOT received bids from Great Lakes Aviation and Sovereign Air. Both providers will offer
service into the Minneapolis Airport.
In summary, Great Lakes Aviation offers:
• Aircraft for 19 passengers and a trained crew.
• Have contacted MSP and they will be located in the Humphrey Terminal near Southwest
Airlines, Have the authority to provide Essential Air Service.
• Average ticket price (one way) of $78.02.
In summary, Sovereign Air offers:
• One aircraft that only accommodates 9 passengers, but not the proper operating
certificate to operate this aircraft with paying passengers on board.
• Currently has no authority to provide Essential Air Service (although, they have applied
and are working through the process).
• Offering to connect with Marshall, MN, although Marshall is not a certificated Part 139
airport, and it could take up to a year to receive the certificate.
• Average ticket price (one way) of $99.
• Lower subsidy amount bid than Great Lakes Aviation.
Recommendation:
After multiple meetings and discussion, the recommendation of the Airport Board is to select
Great Lakes Airlines to provide EAS service to Brookings, SD. This recommendation is based
on the fact that Great Lakes Airlines is an established air carrier with current FAR Part 121
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
61
certification, extensive experience in Beech 1900 aircraft operations, and a proven history of
providing EAS services.
Sovereign Air, Inc. (SAI) offers many possibilities that would make a positive economic impact
on the local community with the hope of creating an airline with a local identification to possibly
enhance boarding numbers. At this point in time, SAI does not have DOT approval to provide
EAS, does not have FAR Part 121 certification for Beech 1900 operations, and has no flight
experience as a company. There were too many parts of the SAI offer that were not well-
defined, or were not yet in place, to be overcome in the period of time needed for service to
begin. As SAI begins and develops flight operations, adds FAR Part 121 certification to their
current Part 135 certificate, and gains experience as a reliable provider of safe air
transportation, they should compete favorably for future EAS and other routes.
Airport Board Recommendation:
On Monday, December 1, 2009, the Brookings Airport Board met in the Meeting Room at City
Hall. After discussion, a motion was made by Bailey and seconded by Forsyth to recommend to
the South Dakota Department of Transportation that Great Lakes Airlines be their choice for
an airline for Essential Air Service in Brookings, SD.
Approval of Resolution No. 111-08 will authorize Mayor Munsterman to write a letter of
support to the United States Department of Transportation to recommend Great Lakes
Aviation as the preferred Essential Air Service provider for the City of Brookings.
RESOLUTION NO. 111-08
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE
WHEREAS, the City is desirous in maintaining Essential Air Service for the community; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the bids for Essential Air Service; and
WHEREAS, the City Council endorses Great Lakes as the primary preferred Essential Air Service
provider; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brookings City Council authorizes the Mayor to write a
letter of support to the United States Department of Transportation in accordance to Council
recommendation of the preferred Essential Air Service provider.
Passed and approved this 9th day of December, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________________
ATTEST Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
62
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.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
63
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.
7. Ordinance No. 43-08: An Ordinance establishing a
conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on Lot
1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition. (1503 22nd Street South)
Public Hearing: January 13, 2009
Applicant: Todd Bakken
Proposal: Establish a two-family dwelling in a low-density residential district
Background: This subdivision was designed to accommodate one and two-family
dwellings along the west side of Bluegill Avenue (R-2 District). This created a transition
between the soccer fields and the planned low-density residential east of Bluegill
Avenue. All the buildings that have been constructed in the R-2 District are either
duplexes or twinhomes. The homes east of Bluegill Avenue are single-family dwellings.
Specifics: A permit for a single-family home was issued in 2007. A conversion to a two-
family dwelling in the Residence R-1B District requires compliance with the following:
o A minimum lot area of 12,400 square feet
o A minimum frontage width of 90 feet
o A minimum of four (4) on-premise parking spaces
In addition, a primary focus for approval of a conditional use is the potential
impact on adjacent properties. The Commission has the power to attach reasonable
conditions to insure that any negative impacts are lessened or eliminated.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 0 yes and 7 no to recommend that
this conditional use request not be approved.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
64
Ordinance No. 43-08
An ordinance pertaining to an application for a Conditional Use for a two-family
dwelling in the Residence R-1B District.
Be it ordained by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that said
Conditional Use shall be approved for a two-family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition
with the following conditions:
None
All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 9, 2008
SECOND READING: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
69
Planning Commission
Brookings, South Dakota
October 7, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Chairperson Greg Fargen called the regular meeting of the City Planning Commission to
order on November 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Members present
were Curt Ness, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, Al Heuton, Al Gregg and
Fargen. Larry Fjeldos and Stacy Howlett were absent. Also present were Todd Bakken, Crystal
Sik, and City Planner Dan Hanson.
Item #4 – Todd Bakken has submitted an application for a conditional use to approve a two-
family dwelling on Lot 1, Block 5, Bluegill Addition.
(Cameron/Gustafson) Motion to approve the conditional use. All present voted no.
MOTION FAILED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #4 – Bakken stated he purchased the lot before all the twinhomes were built on the west
side of Bluegill Avenue. He noted that house sales had slowed so he wanted to convert the
house to a two-family dwelling in the future.
Crystal Sik, 1509 22nd Street South, stated that parking was an issue in their
neighborhood due to the existing duplexes. She felt more duplexes would only create more
problems. She submitted statements from three (3) other neighbors opposing the application.
Heuton was concerned that approval of the application could impact parking congestion
in the neighborhood and set precedence for other higher density developments. Kurtz felt
there were other available lots in the community zoned for two-family dwellings. Cameron
noted that the transition zoning was coordinated between the city and the developer when the
development was planned, and therefore should stay as proposed.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
70
Ordinances – 1st Readings**
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing
is announced.
8. Ordinance No. 44-08: an Ordinance rezoning the West
338 feet of the N1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 34-T110N-
R50W, except the South 92 feet thereof, from an
Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A District.
Public Hearing: January 13, 2009
Applicant: Michael and Vicky Clites
Proposal: Rezone 9½ acres for residential use
Background: This acreage is currently undeveloped except for a horse barn that was
constructed a few years ago along the east side about 500 feet south of West 8th Street
South. There are two corrals south of the building. Two residences abut this tract along
the east side. One residence has about three acres of land, and the other has several
outbuildings on approximately 40 acres. These properties separate the subject parcel
from the current city limits.
Specifics: The parcel is a linear strip of land abutting West 16th Avenue South. Rezoning
the land to the requested residential district would permit a developer to establish
about 3 units per acre maximum density. However, actual density would likely be less
than 50% of the maximum.
Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend
approval of this rezoning.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
71
Ordinance No. 44-08
AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING WITHIN THE CITY OF
BROOKINGS:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings,
State of South Dakota, described as follows, to-wit:
the West 338 feet of the N1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the
South 92 feet thereof
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from a class Agricultural A District to a class
Residence R-1A District.
In accordance with Section 800 of Article VIII of Appendix C of the Joint Jurisdiction
Area Zoning Ordinance, as said districts are more fully set forth and described in Articles III
and IV, of Ordinance No. 14-80.
Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is
hereby altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 14-80.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
FIRST READING: December 9, 2008
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: January 13, 2009
PUBLISHED: January 16, 2009
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
75
Joint City/County
Planning Commissions
November 4, 2008
OFFICIAL MINUTES
County Chairperson Duane Knutson called the Joint City/County Planning Commission
meeting to order on November 4, 2008, at 8:00 PM in the Daktronics Room at the Swiftel
Center. County planners present were Jeff Robbins, Darrel Kleinjan, Darrell Nelson, Robert
Rochel, Mary Kidwiler, and Knutson. Emil Klavetter, Randy Jensen, and Robb Loomis were
absent. City planners present were Curt Ness, John Gustafson, Mike Cameron, David Kurtz, Al
Heuton, Al Gregg and Fargen. Larry Fjeldos and Stacy Howlett were absent. Others present
were County Zoning Officer Bob Hill, Mike Clites, City Planner Dan Hanson, and others.
Item #2 – Mike and Vicky Clites have submitted a petition to rezone the west 338 feet of the
N½ of the NW¼ of Section 34-T110N-R50W, except the south 92 feet thereof, from a class
Agricultural A District to a class Residence R-1A District.
(Robbins/Kidwiler) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
(Cameron/Gregg) Motion to approve the rezoning. All present voted aye. MOTION
CARRIED.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Item #2 – Mike Clites stated he had owned about 80 acres of land many years ago in this area.
He eventually sold the land but recently repurchased 9½ acres. His plan was to build one house
on the acreage and continue to raise horses. He noted that other homes were nearby, and
water and sewer services were available.
Kurtz commented that similar zoning was present along 8th Street South. He felt an
extension of the zoning in the area was appropriate. Cameron and Rochel concurred.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
76
Ordinances – 1st Readings**
** No vote is taken on the first reading of ordinances. The title of the ordinance is read and the date for the public hearing
is announced.
9. Ordinance No. 45-08: An Ordinance entitled “An
Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation to
the 2008 Budget for the purpose of Providing for
Additional Funds for the Operation of the City.”
Second Reading: December 16th
Budget Amendment No. 5 recognizes additional revenue from the delinquent tax
collections and recognizes additional expenses for two items not budgeted for: 1) the
removal of the building which was donated to the City located next to the Library, 2)
the South Dakota Municipal Dues for the year of 2008. We are also reversing the
budgeted transfer from the 2nd Penny Public Improvement Fund to the Airport.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
77
ORDINANCE NO. 45-08
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATION TO THE 2008 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA:
WHEREAS, there is a need to adjust the budget to respond to the actual revenues and expenditures in
fiscal year 2008, and
AND WHEREAS THE CITY CHARTER allows that “if during the fiscal year the City Manager certifies
that there are available for appropriation revenues in excess of those estimated in the budget, the City
Council by ordinance may make supplemental appropriations for the year up to the amount of such
excess”. This Ordinance is declared to be for the support of the municipal government and its existing
public institutions and it shall be in full force and effect after its passage and publication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the City Manager is authorized
to make the following budget adjustments to the 2008 budget:
Budget Amendment #4
Revenue Expense
Non-departmental 15,000 7,729
Community Development 5,102
Total General Government 15,000 12,831
75% Public Improvement/Ord (189,215)
Total Special Revenue (189,215)
Airport (189,215)
Total Special Revenue (189,215)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2008 Budget is amended as described above.
Passed and approved this 16th of December, 2008.
FIRST READING: December 09, 2008
SECOND READING: December 16, 2008
PUBLISHED: December 19, 2008
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
2008 2008 2008 2008
Adopted Amendment Amendment Amended
Non-Departmental Revenue Expense Budget
101-000-4-111-02 Delinquent Real Estate Taxes 0 15,000 15,000
101-405-5-429-01 SDML Membership Dues 0 7,729 7,729
101-418-5-425-05 Demolition of Calhoon building 1,000 5,102 6,102
Total Non-Departmental 15,000 12,831
75% Public Improvement/Sales Tax
213-000-5-899-01 Transfer out to Airport-Land Purchase 189,215 (189,215)0
Total 75% Pulbic Improvement (189,215)
Airport
606-000-6-700.04 Transfer in Sales & Use Tax 189,215 (189,215)0
Total Airport (189,215)0
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
79
Second Readings & Public Hearings
10. Public hearing and action on a lease of real property to
private entity – Library Coffee Shop Contract.
The Brookings Public Library Board has determined that a coffee shop within the
Library would enhance library services for the community and proposes this contract
with Harsha Mistry.
Ms. Mistry will operate the coffee shop as an Independent Contractor and provide all
supplies, equipment, management, and labor necessary for the operation of the food and
beverage service.
The Library will remodel the open area on the second floor to house the coffee shop.
The remodeling will be funded by gifts to the Library. No general fund monies will be
used.
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
80
RESOLUTION NO. 107-08
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO LEASE REAL PROPERTY TO PRIVATE ENTITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that
the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Concessionaire Agreement with Harsha Mistry,
for a period of one (1) year and pertaining to the following described property:
Approximately 500 square feet of space located in the Brookings Public Library
for the purpose of conducting food and beverage concessions.
BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing and action will be held on the 9th
day of December, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon thereafter as this matter can be heard,
at the City Council Chambers and that all persons will be given an opportunity to be heard on
the proposed Concessionaire Agreement.
Passed and approved this 18th day of November 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
81
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF INTENT TO LEASE
REAL PROPERTY TO PRIVATE PERSON
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 9, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon
as this matter can be heard, the Brookings City Council will hold a Public Hearing at the
Council Chambers on a proposed Concessionaire Agreement of the City of Brookings which
provides for a lease to Harsha Mistry of the following described property:
Approximately 500 square feet of space located in the Brookings Public Library
for the purpose of conducting food and beverage concessions.
At the time and place set for this Public Hearing, all who appear will be given an
opportunity to express their views for or against the proposal to enter into a Concessionaire
Agreement concerning the above-described property with Harsha Mistry.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2008.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
82
CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT
_________________________
1. Parties. This Agreement is entered into this ___day of___________________, 2008, by
and between the Brookings Public Library, hereinafter referred to as “BPL”, and Harsha
Mistry, hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”.
2. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the rights and conditions under
which the BPL leases a concession stand (hereafter also referred to as the “stand”) to
Lessee for the limited purposes of conducting food and beverage concessions. (The size of
the “concession stand” is approximately 500 sq. ft. and is shown on the attached drawing
marked Exhibit “A”).
3. Term. The term of the Agreement shall be for a one (1) year period, beginning as soon
after the premises are remodeled and ready for use as a concession stand. The parties
agree to discuss and select a mutually convenient start date. Contract renewal discussions
will begin at the start of the fourth quarter of the current contract term.
In the event that Lessee remains in possession of the premises after the expiration of the
tenancy and without the execution of a new agreement, it shall be deemed to be occupying
said premises as Lessee from month-to-month and subject to all other conditions,
provisions, and obligations of this Agreement insofar as the same are applicable to a month-
to-month tenancy.
4. Independent Contractor. Lessee shall undertake the furnishing of services hereunder as
an Independent Contractor and personnel supplied by Lessee shall be and remain Lessee’s
employees and Lessee assumes full responsibility for their acts.
5. Personnel. Lessee shall adequately staff the stand during all times that it is open to the
public for business.
Employees on the Lessee’s payroll shall be the Lessee’s responsibility. Lessee shall comply
with all applicable government regulations related to the employment, compensation, and
payment of said personnel.
Lessee shall be responsible for the professional presentation of its staff. Lessee shall furnish
and require employees to wear nametags.
6. Equipment & Supplies. Lessee shall purchase, maintain, and insure all necessary
equipment and supplies needed to properly perform the functions agreed to herein and
needed to provide adequate services to patrons. Such equipment shall include but is not
limited to necessary items to produce and dispense food and beverage items. Said
equipment shall be of good quality and shall comply with all federal, state, and municipal
rules, statutes, ordinances and regulatory measures and laws of any kind applicable.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
83
The BPL shall provide approximately 500 square feet of existing space on the second floor
of the library to Lessee to operate her concession stand. Lessee hereby agrees the BPL will
maintain ownership of the capital improvements made in preparation for this lease. The
above-described capital improvements include, but are not limited to the following: flooring,
electrical, plumbing, plumbing fixtures and furniture. A common kitchen will be available for
use by both Lessee and other community groups. BPL will also provide a refrigerator with
Lock for use by Lessee; however the refrigerator shall remain the property of the BPL.
(Attached is a list of personal property which Lessee will provide for use on the premises).
Personal property provided by Lessee will remain Lessee’s property at the conclusion of
this Agreement.
7. Food & Beverage Service. Lessee shall obtain approval from BPL for its food and
beverage service menu, however, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and
pricing shall be within the sole discretion of Lessee.
8. Maintenance & Sanitation. Lessee shall furnish all supplies, equipment, management, and
labor necessary for the efficient, nutritional, sanitary, and ecologically sound operation of
the food and beverage service provided by Lessee.
The premises, equipment, and facilities shall be cleaned and maintained in a condition
satisfactory to the BPL. Lessee shall adhere to the highest standards of cleanliness and
sanitary practices to ensure continual sanitation in matters related to the execution of the
terms of this Agreement. This includes but is not limited to the food handler’s appearance,
and performance in the preparation, service, transport, and storage of food and related
items.
Janitorial service will be provided by BPL for the patron area.
9. Supervision. BPL shall have the right to exercise general supervision over Lessee’s
operations, including the right to review Lessee’s compliance with regulations regarding the
method of handling and selling food and beverage products.
10. Payment. For the purposes of this Agreement, “gross receipts” from sales is defined as the
total revenues generated less the full amount of State and Municipal sales taxes, if any,
applicable thereto. Lessee agrees to timely file all necessary sales tax returns at her own
expense.
Lessee shall pay BPL six percent (6%) of the previous month’s gross receipts for the first six
months of operation, with each lease payment made on the 5th day of each month.
Beginning with seventh month, Lessee will pay Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00), by
the 5th day of each month.
Gross sales will be based on sales tax returns for the first six (6) months of operation.
Lessee shall provide a true copy of the monthly South Dakota Sales and Use Tax Return for
the prior month with each lease payment.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
84
11. Statements. All accounts and records of the Lessee relating to the operation of the
concessions shall be available for examination upon request by the BPL.
12. Hours of Operation. Lessee shall be open during all hours agreed upon by the BPL and
the Lessee. Lessee shall clearly post said hours.
13. Design. The interior design of the leased space must meet the approval of the BPL. The
design must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
14. Signage. All signage must meet the approval of the BPL and comply with local and state
laws and ordinances.
15. Alterations, Repairs, or Improvements. Lessee shall not make any alterations, repairs,
or improvements to the area immediately surrounding the concession stand without
obtaining prior written consent of the BPL. Requests to make any alterations, repairs, or
adjustments shall be in writing. Any alterations or improvements to the property of the BPL
shall become the property of the BPL.
16. Licenses. Lessee shall obtain all licenses necessary and required to operate a food and
beverage concession.
17. Rules & Regulations. Lessee shall comply with all rules and regulations of BPL and with all
federal, state, and municipal rules, regulatory measures and laws of any kind applicable to
the operation of a concession.
All beverages must be served in a container with a lid to minimize spillage.
No events or meetings using the Cooper Rooms can be scheduled without the prior
permission of the BPL.
The BPL must be notified when prices change for food or beverages. Changes may not be
done more frequently than once per quarter.
18. Non-Discrimination. Lessee shall provide food and beverage services to the general
public without discrimination as to race, color, creed, national origin, disability, age, or sex.
Lessee agrees that in the operation and use of the premises, it will not on the grounds of
race, color, creed, national origin, disability, age, or sex, discriminate or permit
discrimination against any person or group of persons in any manner.
Lessee agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, color, creed, national origin, disability, age or sex.
19. Transference of Ownership. This Agreement is non-transferable to any new ownership
of the concession stand which is the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement cannot be
sold as a part of any transference of ownership and should be considered valid between the
BPL and the undersigned persons ONLY.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
85
20. Assignment and Sublease. Lessee agrees not to assign, lease or sublease the premises,
or any part thereof, without the express written permission of the BPL.
21. Termination. This Agreement shall be terminable by either party upon a sixty (60) day
written notice.
22. Breach. Breach of this Agreement by either Party shall be cause for termination of this
Agreement if the breaching party does not cure the breach within thirty (30) days of receipt
of written notice of such from the other party.
23. Surrender of Possession. At the termination of the Agreement, lessee shall quit and
surrender possession of said premises in as good condition as received; usual wear and tear
excepted.
24. Hold Harmless. Each party shall indemnify, defend, and hold the other party and its
governing boards, employees and agents harmless from any and all damages, claims, suits,
demands, or asserted obligations for injuries or damages arising out of the Lessee’s use or
occupation of the premises or the operation of the business described in this Agreement
which results from the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of either party or
their representatives, agents or employees.
25. Workers Compensation. Lessee agrees to purchase and maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance as required by state and federal law.
26. Insurance. Lessee shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain liability
insurance with a One Million Dollar ($1,000,000.00) limit per occurrence or equivalent for
the leased premises (Exhibit “A” shows the location and dimensions of the leased premises)
operations and product liability. Lessee shall furnish BPL with a certificate of insurance
acceptable to the City of Brookings. Such certificate shall be attached hereto and
incorporated herein along with a statement generally describing the coverage therein
contained. Said insurance shall name the City of Brookings as an additional insured. Lessee’s
failure to maintain the levels of insurance as specified in the Agreement shall be cause for
immediate termination of this Agreement.
27. Applicable Law. The parties’ rights and obligations under this Agreement shall be
governed by, and construed in accordance with the law of the State of South Dakota
28. Mediation/Enforcement of this Agreement. The parties agree to mediate any
disputes, with each party paying one-half of the costs of mediation, which they cannot
resolve through negotiations prior to initiating any litigation. If mediation fails, either party
may undertake any legal or equitable action available to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement in addition to any remedies provided herein. In the event either party is
required to undertake any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing
party may recover from the other party its reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
incurred with respect to such action.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
86
29. Invalid Sections. If any section(s), or provision(s) of this Agreement is declared invalid for
any reason whatsoever by any competent court, such invalidity shall not affect any other
section(s) or provision(s) of this Agreement if it can be given effect without the invalid
section(s) or provision(s).
30. Merger. The parties agree that this writing constitutes the entire agreement between
them and that there are no other oral or collateral agreements or understandings of any
kind or character except those contained herein. No modification or amendment to this
Agreement shall be valid, unless evidenced by a writing signed by the parties hereto.
Dated this __________day of ____________________ 2008.
_____________________________________________________________________
Chair, Brookings Public Library Board of Trustees
_____________________________________________________________________
Harsha Mistry
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
87
Second Readings & Public Hearings
11. Public hearing and action on annual Liquor and Wine
renewals.
The annual state liquor and wine licenses expire on December 31, 2008. In
accordance with state law, all licenses must be acted on by the governing body.
The period of renewal is from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009. The cost of the
liquor license renewal is $1,500 and the wine license renewal is $500, both are payable
to the City. All required documentation has been submitted.
Liquor On-Sale: Applebee’s/Porter Apple Co. B Inc., 3001 LeFevre Dr., BraVo’s, 610
Medary Ave., Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill / GDT Inc., 307 Main Ave., Danny’s / David
Olson Inc., 703 Main Ave. So., B P O Elks Lodge 1490, 516 4th St., Fireside, 2515 E. 6th
St., Jim’s Tap, 309 Main Ave., Half Pint Enterprise Inc / Lantern Lounge, 303 3rd St., 9
Bar Nightclub, 303 Main Ave., Pavilion, 2500 6th St., Pheasant Café & Lounge, 726 Main
Ave. So., Prairie Lanes/Busick-Nelson Inc., Ram & O’Hare’s Ent LLC/The Ram, 327 Main
Ave., Ray’s Corner / Fergen Ent. Inc., 401 Main Ave., Safari Lounge Ltd, 421 Main Ave.,
Skinner’s Pub, 300 Main Ave., VFW Post 2118, 520 Main Ave. Liquor Off-Sale:
Municipal Liquor Store, 780 22nd Ave. So.
Wine On-Off Sale: BraVo’s, 610 Medary Ave., George’s Pizza, 311 Main Ave.,
Guadalajara, 1715 6th St., Suite F, Hagman’s Bakery, 307 3rd St., Halstead’s Natural
Bakery & Restaurant, 417 Main Ave., Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22nd Ave., Main Street
Pub, 408 Main Ave., Old Sanctuary, 928 4th St., Perkins Family Restaurant, 2205 6th St.,
Skinner’s Pub, 300 Main Ave., Shamrock, dba, 1104 22nd Ave. So.
Action: Open and close public hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
88
Other Business:
12. Action on Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Brookings and SDSU for the SDSU Wellness
Center (TABLED ITEM).
Dr. Michael Reger, Vice President of Administration for South Dakota State University,
will be at the meeting to present the following proposed Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU. Note that the City Council
reviewed and tabled this issue at its July 22, 2008 meeting:
Discussion and possible action on a Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Brookings and South Dakota State University for the Wellness Center. A
motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Brookings and South Dakota State University for the Wellness Center.
Discussion: Dr. Michael Reger, Vice President of Administration for South Dakota State University,
presented the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU. This
MOU is pursuant to City Resolution No. 115-96 that declared the city’s intent to sales tax funds for the
Wellness Center. Dr. Reger requested this item be tabled until he can present it to the Board of Regents.
A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans, to table. All present voted yes, Brunner
abstained, motion to TABLE passed.
This MOU is pursuant to City Resolution No. 115-96 that declared the city’s intent to
sales tax funds for the Wellness Center. A copy of resolution is enclosed. Section 3-C
states as follows: “The SDSU Wellness Center will be owned by the State of South
Dakota and operated by South Dakota State University pursuant to a Joint Powers
Agreement which will provide for community involvement in the use of the SDSU
Wellness Center.”
The other enabling city document is City Resolution No. 13-97 (see enclosed) that
approved the City’s funding participation in the Performing Arts Center and the
Wellness Center projects. A copy of the Performing Arts Center MOU is enclosed for
reference. Specifically related to the Wellness Project it states, “….the City of
Brookings shall participate in the Wellness Center Project with SDSU; shall enter into a
Joint Use Agreement with SDSU pertaining to the same and shall contribute $500,000
from revenues derived from the additional penny sales tax towards the development
and construction of said project.”…
Enclosures:
1. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding for the Wellness Center
2. City Resolution No. 115-96
3. City Resolution No. 13-97
4. Performing Arts Center Memorandum of Understanding
Action: Motion to remove from table, roll call
Action: Request public comment, roll call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
89
Please be advised that the MOU document has changed from what the
Council revised and made a motion to approve back on 7/22/08.
Deletions are in BLUE and additions are in RED.
SDSU Wellness Center
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS, the 2004 legislative session of the Legislature of the State of South Dakota
by Chapter 120, and as amended by the 2006 legislative session at Chapter 99, all at SDCL 13-
51-1, authorized the Board of Regents to contract for the construction of and the equipping
and furnishing of a Wellness Center at South Dakota State University, Brookings, at an
estimated cost of $12.1 million to be paid from other funds under the control of the Board of
Regents, from gifts and grants to South Dakota State University specifically for this purpose,
including bond proceeds provided by the City of Brookings, and from financing provided
pursuant to chapter 13-51A, all of which were appropriated to the Board of Regents for the
purposes of the act; and,
WHEREAS, Section 2 of the act empowered the Board of Regents to expend funds
obtained for the purposes of the act and appropriated the funds to the Board; and,
WHEREAS, Section 3 provided that the administration of the design and construction of
these facilities and oversight of building committees appointed therefore, as provided in Chapter
5-14-3 shall be under the general charge and supervision of the Governor and the executive
director of the Board of Regents or their designees; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings by virtue of the power granted to the City of
Brookings under SDCL 9-12-4 and 9-12-5 has the power to enter into an agreement with the
State of South Dakota and with any authorized agency of the state to carry out any authorized
municipal function, and is authorized to give and convey any personal property of the
municipality to the state to be used for an authorized public purpose upon the terms and in the
manner provided by resolution of the governing body; and,
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota identified the property described as follows, to-
wit:
From the SE corner of the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 110N, Range 50W proceed
N90°W 332 feet and E90°N 79 feet to Point of Beginning (POB). From POB proceed
E90°S 224 feet; thence S90°W 419 feet; thence W90°N 224 feet; thence N90°E 419 to
POB. Said tract containing 2.16 acres of Section 24, T110, R50W; and upon which real
property is to be constructed the Wellness Center facility as authorized by the legislative
acts mentioned previously; and,
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
90
WHEREAS, the State of South Dakota is constructing a Wellness Center facility on the
campus of South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, on behalf of the Board of
Regents of the State of South Dakota; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Brookings is contributing to the financing for the construction of
said facility to enhance the availability of multi-use facilities for the City of Brookings and
surrounding Brookings County area; and,
WHEREAS, in order to recognize the cooperative effort of the City of Brookings and
South Dakota State University for the use of the facility, which is being jointly constructed, and in
order to reduce to writing the contractual obligation established by the Board of Regents and the
local unit of government, namely, the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation of the State of
South Dakota.
NOW, THEREFORE, this Memorandum of Understanding and legally binding contract is
entered into by and between (South Dakota State University) the Board of Regents of the State
of South Dakota and the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation of the State of South
Dakota, to set forth in writing in general terms the right of access to the facility and the nature
of the cooperative arrangements which will be utilized in the use of the facility to maximize the
benefit, not only to the campus of South Dakota State University, but also to the City of
Brookings and surrounding Brookings County area.
1. All parties to this agreement recognize that this is a legally binding contract granting
an opportunity for city residents and others to join the facility in the manner to be
established by South Dakota State University, which opportunity is granted and
given in consideration of the payment by the City of Brookings of $500,000 for the
construction of and the equipping and furnishing of a Wellness Center facility at
South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota.
2. All parties to this agreement recognize that the facility being constructed is primarily
intended for the educational, health and wellness needs of the campus of South
Dakota State University, under the direction of the Board of Regents.
3. The administration of South Dakota State University, through the Board of Regents,
shall be responsible for the primary management and maintenance of the facility,
including scheduling, security, maintenance, control of concessions, formulation and
enforcement of building rules, and establishment of fee schedules for use of the
facility.
4. SDSU students will have basic access to the Wellness Center facilities at no additional
cost beyond the mandatory student activity fees all students must pay each
semester. Wellness programs and activities that involve specialized instruction,
equipment or facilities may assess additional costs.
5. SDSU faculty and staff, Brookings residents and others may purchase Wellness
Center memberships at varying cost levels to meet their individual needs.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
91
This Memorandum of Understanding does not constitute a binding
contract concerning the specific use of the facility for any specific events, but it
does impose an obligation and duty upon the State of South Dakota to provide for a right of
access to the facility in the manner contractually established herein.
This Memorandum of Understanding for the intergovernmental cooperation and use
of the facility being constructed on the campus of South Dakota State University is executed
by South Dakota State University subject to approval by the Board of Regents and is
accepted and agreed to by the Board of Regents.
Dated this _______ day of ________________, ___________.
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
_ By____________________________
David L. Chicoine, President
CITY OF BROOKINGS, a municipal SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF
Corporation of the State of South Dakota REGENTS
By___________________________________ By_______________________
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
100
Other Business:
13. Action on Larson Ice Center building / parking lot modification
project.
FROM: Allyn Frerichs, Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry
RE: Larson Ice Center Improvements
DATE: December 2, 2008
The 2009 City budget includes a Capital Improvement project at Larson Ice Center.
Approved was an expenditure of $625,000 with $375,000 of donated funds from the
Brookings Ice Skating Association (BISA) and $250,000 of city money. Major features of
the project are new boards and glass in the Blue Rink (existing were moved from old ice
arena) and completion of mezzanine and permanent seating on the north side of the Red
Rink. The north seating and mezzanine will duplicate that on the south side, will
connect to the east mezzanine and will include space beneath the seating area for future
varsity dressing rooms, lockers and officials/coaches room.
BISA has purchased the new boards and they were installed in early November. Banner
Associates is doing final design and specifications for a mid-winter bid letting for the
seating and mezzanine. Construction would begin on April 1st and will have a
completion date of July 1st, prior to summer ice in the Red Rink.
Subsequent to the budget process, in early fall, BISA was offered a donation to be used
to provide exterior modifications and improvements to the west entrance at Larson Ice
Center. Architect’s drawings of the concept approved by BISA, city staff and the Park
and Recreation Board are attached. The improvements include several important and
beneficial features:
1. A covered front entry extending to the parking lot.
2. Larger and more visible building signage.
3. A more attractive building façade with decorative painting, graphics and
silhouette cutouts, which were part of the original plans but not funded
initially.
4. A redesign of the drop-off zones and parking layout in the west parking lot.
The new plan blocks the drive through in front of the building, extends a
pedestrian sidewalk with lighting west through the parking lot, and allows
two drop-off zones, one from the north and one from the south, plus very
convenient accessible parking. This change will be much safer for everyone
involved and does not affect the number of parking spots.
At this point in time, final design is not complete, so budget estimates are preliminary.
However, the estimated cost of parking lot improvements is between $125-$150,000,
about one third of the total project. Because the parking lot improvements are very
beneficial to the city, the proposal is that this portion could be funded by the city, with
the remainder a donation.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
101
However, since the construction would be scheduled for summer 2009 and the city has not
budgeted for this item, the donor has offered to loan the appropriate amount to the city on a
short-term basis. City Manager Jeff Weldon has suggested the loan could be paid back in 2012,
the year after the last payment is made on a similar loan used for construction of the Hillcrest
Aquatic Center, with the approval of the City Council for this future expenditure in the five-
year CIP.
The Park and Recreation Board, city staff, and BISA support the project and feel we should take
advantage of this opportunity.
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: Approve
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
106
Other Business
14. Report from Brookings Transportation Board.
At the November meeting of the Transportation Board, the Board approved the final
report and is transmitted herewith to the City Council. The Board determined this
report should be updated every two years with the intervening year a time for
implementation of recommendations from the previous year’s report. Like everything
else, the extent of implementation is dependent upon available funding. This way, the
report is assured of being a comprehensive planning tool instead of a typical one-time
analysis that is seldom utilized.
It is important to make the distinction of what this is and what it is not. This report
includes a comprehensive analysis of the current transportation system serving
Brookings as it relates to mass transit and bicycling as an alternative mode of
transportation. To maintain consistency, the Council’s adopted policies of bike lanes
are integrated into this report. This report is not a traffic analysis, street system analysis,
or a masterplan for new streets. These items are beyond the scope of the Board’s
mission. However, there is a section devoted to the provision of way-finding signage.
The Board will meet again early next year to begin the action plan for many of the
projects.
Action: Informational
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
108
Executive Summary
The City of Brookings Transportation Board met eight times from inception to the completion
of this report. Meeting dates were: February 19, 2008; March 25, 2008; April 15, 2008; May 20,
2008; June 17, 2008; August 19, 2008; September 16, 2008; October 21. 2008. All meetings
were open to the public and held at Brookings City Hall. In addition to Board members,
service providers were frequent attendees at the Board meetings and were invaluable in
providing technical assistance, information, and suggestions to the Board’s dialogue.
The Board was greatly assisted by two (2) technical reports analyzing the Brookings
transportation system. They are: City of Brookings: Transportation Gap Analysis &
Recommendations (August, 2007); and Campus Transit Development Planning: A Case Study
(July, 2007), which was prepared for Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA). Both reports
were prepared by the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center, Upper Great Plains Transportation
Institute of North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota.
The Board analyzed the scope and extent of service provided by each service provider to
better understand their respective operations, where gaps in service may exist, and where
duplication may exist. Primary service providers are:
Brookings Area Transit Authority: (provider)
Provides advance reservation, dial-a-ride, at-door service with limited fixed route service in a
system of mini-buses seven days a week. There is a split fee system for advance day and same
day service calls.
Brookings Taxi: (provider)
Provides private, on-demand, at-door service Friday and Saturday from 8 pm to 3 am.
Easy Cab: (provider)
Provides private, on-demand, at-door service Thursday-Friday-Saturday from 9 pm to 3 am. In
the downtown area. Hours are expanded for special events.
Safe Ride: (program)
Provides specialized service, primarily to SDSU students Thursday-Friday-Saturday from 10 pm
to 3 am. Service route is primarily downtown, SDSU campus, Wal-Mart, Perkins, Hy-Vee and
certain apartment complexes. Primary purpose is to keep impaired drivers off the road. BATA
provides most of the service for this program with funds provided by the City of Brookings and
the SDSU Student Association.
Volunteer Service Bank: (provider and program)
Provides specialized service on-demand primarily for those needing medical attention or to get
to medical appointments. Service is provided Monday-Friday, 8am to noon with some limited
service during the afternoons. VSB provides trips on-demand to Sioux Falls for specialized
medical appointments. VSB is not a certified Medicaid provider and does not have handicap-
accessible vehicles.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
109
ADVANCE: (provider and program)
Provides specialized transit services to developmentally-disabled persons on a 24/7 basis as a
service to group homes, supervised apartment buildings, and day services components.
ADVANCE heavily relies on BATA buses whenever possible and feasible for coordinated and
supplemental service. Most ADVANCE clients have significant mobility challenges. ADVANCE
is best equipped to address those challenges.
The Board drew heavily from the two reports referenced above from the Upper Great Plains
Transportation Institute. The reports contained an analysis as well as recommendations. The
Board sought to incorporate those findings into this document instead of duplicating the
analysis. The author of the reports, Mr. David Ripplinger attended one of the meetings and
further explained and described the contents of the documents. He led the Board through a
nominal group technique of prioritizing the types of services that should be addressed. The
priority was as follows:
1) Development of fixed route system
2) Large event planning
3) Commuter/van pool service
4) Demand response service
These issues are addressed further in the details of the report.
The Board concluded there were no glaring gaps in service. A variety of services exists to
meet the most prevailing needs of ridership. Conversely, there is some overlap and duplication
of services but very little. This appears to provide more options and a choice of service to
riders as opposed to producing a wasteful duplication of services. For example, there exists a
sub-set of riders that could find their ridership needs met by Easy Cab, Brookings Taxi, or Safe
Ride. However, there appears to be no duplication between these provides and the BATA
service since the former services are primarily weekend evenings and the latter is weekday
daytime hours. To that degree, all options for riders are covered by a multitude of providers.
Furthermore, BATA makes many service runs for local medical appointments as does the
Volunteer Service Bank. However, the VSB has a flexible fee structure relying on donations or
provides the service free of charge for riders that cannot afford the BATA fare. In addition,
VSB has a high level of flexibility to meet the needs of their clients. To a lesser degree, both
BATA and VSB provide necessary transportation to Sioux Falls for medical services. Again,
while the service may be duplicative, the fee structure provides an important economic
distinction for riders.
BATA will continue to be the lynchpin service of Brookings area mass transit. It has the most
comprehensive service levels and is in the best position to meet the mass transit needs of a
growing community. The demands for growth will need to address moderate population
growth, increased enrollment at a higher educational institution, and traffic congestion at
certain industrial locations during shift changes. BATA provides on-demand service but
operates ten stops on a fixed-route circulator system. BATA should continue to experiment
with fixed route systems to examine their financial and service viability. Continued community
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
110
growth and ridership will build demand for more fixed-route systems. Such routes only
become financially viable when ridership reaches certain thresholds. While Brookings does not
yet appear to have reached that threshold, the BATA system should be prepared and poised to
respond when it does. Experimentation with such fixed routes on trial basis can help position
BATA for identifying and settling on a successful fixed-route system. The reports suggested
three fixed routes that eventually should service the community well. Those routes will be
discussed further in the details of the report.
The presence of South Dakota State University provides unique challenges and opportunities as
an integral part of community transportation needs. SDSU’s masterplan seeks to make physical
improvements aimed at making the campus more “pedestrian-friendly by moving parking lots to
the perimeter of campus as a means of alleviating traffic congestion and improve safety. While
many students have cars, many do not and rely on other means of transportation if their
distance from home to campus is not walkable. SDSU and the Innovation Campus are
committed to providing locations for drop-off and pick-up sites for mass transportation to
facilitate the movement of students and staff to and from their destinations. BATA would seem
to be the most viable service provider.
The Board addressed three additional, ancillary issues related to transportation other than mass
transit. First, the Board spearheaded a grant application to the South Dakota Department of
Transportation for the Safe-Routes-To-Schools Program. This grant program provides funding
to municipalities desiring to improve safety and access to primary and secondary educational
facilities through public education, safety, and construction improvements. The original
application was for $164,000 and the grant was awarded in the amount of $94,000. The scope
of the project will need to be modified in light of the reduced amount if the grant is to be
accepted.
Second, the Board examined issues related to designated bicycle routes through the
community. Brookings is developed an outstanding comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian trail
system designed to safely connect neighborhoods with schools, libraries, parks, cultural
amenities, and other features. Like most communities that develop over several decades, gaps
exist in certain areas. Such gaps will most likely be corrected over time with adjacent re-
development opportunities. However, using a trail and pathway system is only part of the
solution to developing a designated bike route. Such routes require in many places a sharing of
the road between motorized vehicles and bicycles exclusive of pedestrians. What’s more
designated bike routes are designed as a mode of transportation designed to move commuters
between destinations; as opposed to bike trails and pathways which is geared more for leisure
and recreational use. With regard to designated bike routes, the Board adopted a two-phase
proposal developed by a sub-committee that would designate bike routes on campus and in the
neighborhoods adjacent to campus as Phase I. Design and community input would be executed
during the winter of 2008-09 with physical delineation and project completion during the 2009
construction season. Phase II would branch further into the community connecting Phase I
routes with existing destinations, paths, trails, and commuter streets elsewhere in the
community.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
111
Third, the Board addressed the need for additional signage to primarily direct visitors to points
of interest around the community. Such signage should have a consistent theme and design to
be easily identified and provide direction along arterial street systems. On this point, the Board
concluded a more detailed analysis be done which sets forth specific amenities of the
community highlighted in a consistent theme on signage and key locations to assist visitors in
directing them to said destinations.
Existing Service Providers
The Greater Brookings area is serviced with a variety of transit providers for both general and
specialized clientele. Brookings Area Transit Authority (BATA) provides the mainstay service
with a fleet of mini-buses and vans for on-demand, same-day, and limited fixed route service.
Hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Sunday. However, BATA will provide specialized transportation beginning at 5:00 a.m.
weekdays. This specialized service is mostly for employees who have disabilities to get to their
place of employment. BATA is operated as a non-profit with revenue from fares, the federal
government, local government, contracts for service, and donations.
Specialized service providers provide niche service needs which include the Safe Ride Program,
Volunteer Service Bank, ADVANCE, and Easy Cab. Brookings Taxi Cab is exclusively a private,
on-demand service operating Friday and Saturday, 8:00 pm to 3:00 am. Exhibit D fully describes
the service level of each provider.
The Board concluded there were no overriding gaps in service, or areas where there was a
significant, quantifiable need that was not being met by at least one of the providers.
Conversely, there exists some minor amount of duplication of service but such duplication
lends itself more to provide some degree of choice for the clientele without unduly hindering
any one provider that would be attributed to duplicating services. This certain amount of
duplication is advantageous to providing an alternative at a time when the primary option may
not otherwise be available. The Board found no reason to reduce or eliminate any of the
current service providers. At the same time, they found no lack of service that could not be
provided by any of the current service providers and saw no reason to initiate another
provider.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
112
Resource study recommendations & comment
The Small Urban and Rural Transit Center of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute
located at North Dakota State University in Fargo provided two studies to the Board which
yielded substantial research in the area of local transit. The reports are entitled
“Transportation Gap Analysis & Recommendations” and “Campus Transit Development
Planning – A Case Study.” The former was prepared for the City of Brookings (August, 2007)
and the latter was prepared for BATA (July, 2007). The following is the description of the
report’s recommendations from the Gap Analysis report followed by commentary from the
Board. A more complete description of the recommendation is provided in the report.
Recommendation 1: Establish a coordinated transportation board
Commentary:
This recommendation has been adopted with the approval of Resolution 90-07 of the
Brookings City Council. This report is a product of the Board that comprises this
recommendation.
Recommendation 2: Build support for coordinated, same-day service
Commentary:
The Board concluded there is no direct coordination between service providers; rather, clients
call for the service that best fits their need. In many cases, that is same-day service or at least a
notice of 24 hours. The NDSU report recommends service-sharing whereby clients would
contact a centralized dispatch instead of individual provider and they may not know which
provider would actually show up to provide the service. This arrangement is problematical
where funding is concerned.
Recommendation 3: Revise existing city transportation funding allocation and oversight policy
Commentary:
This section of the NDSU report suggests several operational and procedural modifications that
are tied to future funding and accountability. Since the NDSU report was written for
Brookings, the private taxi service has dramatically reduced its level of service and City funding
has been transferred from the private taxi service to BATA in recognition of the call load shift
primarily in the same direction. When the taxi service was in full operation, BATA had a
practice of not competing with them pursuant to a condition of receiving federal funds. The
NDSU report confirms this as a policy recommendation as a condition of funding. What’s
more, the report further suggested awarding local funding to service providers based on their
level of coordination in an effort to avoid duplication and their efficiency level to address unmet
needs. Finally, the report suggests regular activity reports as a measure of accountability for
receiving local government funds.
Brookings City and County provide funding for BATA and the City of Brookings provides
funding for Safe Ride. Several other providers received funding from the United Way and other
local sources. Only entities that provide funding to specific providers should have justification
to request activity reports as a means of insuring accountability. As such, each entity that
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
113
provides funding is encouraged to work with the recipient provider to develop their own
mutually-agreeable means of reporting requirements.
The NDSU report suggested state and federal sources of funding are often structured to be
leveraged by local matches. It is recommended local funding amounts be structured to leverage
the maximum amount of other grant sources as possible. BATA does this very well in that 50
percent of operating expenses are available from state/federal sources if the remaining 50
percent is secured through an aggregate of other local sources. Funding opportunities and
programs can vary significantly from year to year and it is further recommended this Board and
service providers alike remain informed and educated on changes to programs and funding
opportunities that can be accessed to improve the overall program.
Recommendation 4: Study expanded fixed-route service
Commentary:
Fixed-route systems are the mainstay of transit services where sufficient demand exists for
service levels beyond on-demand service. BATA currently operates one fixed (limited service)
route (attached in Exhibit E). The expansion with additional fixed routes will depend upon a
sufficient increase in ridership to justify such routes. The NDSU report “Campus Transit
Development Planning” suggests three possible additional fixed routes and analyzes the
ridership and associated costs. For a fixed route system that is heavily dependent upon student
ridership, drastic changes in usage that coincides with the school year and non-school year will
heavily influence the viability of such a route. Again, funding is the crucial determining factor in
viability. The Board recommends adopting this report recommendation and experimenting
with one (1) additional fixed route for the community on a trial basis. The hypothetical fixed
routes in the report should be used as a guide to selecting the specific route and need not be
exactly the route analyzed in the report. BATA should be the provider to service this route
and supplemental funding will need to be provided for this pilot project.
Recommendation 5: Consider role of transportation in Large Event planning
Commentary:
Providing specialized shuttle transportation for large events is currently being done and the
Board adopted this recommendation as a priority that should be continued. BATA is in the
best position to provide this service with their fleet of buses that can be made available from
their regular service for specialized shuttle services for events. Promoters and organizers of
such large events such as SDSU, the Chamber of Commerce/Visitors Bureau, Swiftel Center
and other organizations charged with organizing and promoting special events are aware BATA
is available to provide such service. What’s more, because of the large number of users on a
rotating origin-destination fixed route and a continuous shuttle schedule for a lump sum price
by the event planner, the service is relatively profitable for BATA. This is already a mainstay
service and will be continued.
Recommendation 6: Consider vanpool services
Commentary:
Coordinated vanpool services for employees as a home-to-work transportation system appears
to be non-existent in Brookings, at least there was not any known to the Board. However, it
may be possible that a group of employees have, on their own initiative, organized a van or car
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
114
pool system where the origin, destination, and schedule make such an option feasible. This
option addresses the transit issue of home-to-work commuters on a fairly regular work
schedule which puts more commuters in fewer vehicles. This alleviates traffic congestion on
streets and saves parking lot space at employers. In many cases, large employers have provided
incentives for their employees who live close to each other and work similar or identical shifts,
to car/vanpool instead of each employee driving their own vehicle. To minimize the
car/vanpool stops to pick up/drop-off employees, the use of a strategically-located park-and-
ride lot as a central location assists with the efficiencies of this mode of transportation. The
Board adopted this recommendation as a priority and recognized it would need to be first
addressed by holding informational assessment meetings with major employers such as
Daktronics, Larson Manufacturing, 3M, and others to assess the needs of their employees.
Longer-distance can/vanpool arrangements become more feasible for employees who work in
Brookings but live in outlying communities such as Aurora, Volga, Arlington, Bruce, or White.
Recommendation 7: Incorporate community transportation into emergency planning
Commentary:
To date, provisions for the mass transportation, evacuation, or movement of persons in the
face of an emergency or natural disaster, is not adequately integrated into local emergency
planning. Local public safety officials have disaster management plans that are constantly being
updated. For those emergency situations that occur where persons are congregated needing
to be quickly evacuated, and where individual and separate mobility is not feasible, efficient, or
fast enough, the fleet of BATA buses and school buses will need to be mobilized. These buses
need to arrive at the scene, load persons, and evacuate them quickly to safety. It is
recommended local emergency planners incorporate the provision of mass evacuation during
emergencies using school district and BATA buses.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
115
Board priority recommendations
Using the resource studies as background information, the Board further developed four
priorities, listed below in order of importance, as key issues to implement in the future. Board
members used the Nominal Group Technique to prioritize these items. They are:
Priority 1: Fixed route service delivery (39 votes)
The resource reports suggested three possible fixed routes around Brookings. Currently, one
“service” route exists provided by BATA. While it technically does not meet the criteria of a
fixed route, it operates similar to a fixed route. This priority would be to develop a pilot
project on a trial basis of adding one additional fixed route. This route would strategically
identify key points of bus stop locations as identified by the demand service and assemble them
into a route that coordinates with the existing fixed route. The existing route may need to be
adjusted to complement the efficiencies of two routes. It is further suggested one of the two
routes (existing or proposed) have the SDSU student union as a centralized bus stop serving
the entire campus and not have several stops at various locations that would serve to dilute
ridership. Obviously, this route may need to be altered during the summer months when there
would be less campus ridership activity. BATA is best equipped to service fixed route service.
When a prototype route is selected, BATA should develop a proposed budget. BATA and the
Board should work to secure funding for this pilot project. Supplemental marketing and
advertising costs will be needed as a measure of success for this pilot fixed route.
SDSU ridership is crucial to the success of a fixed-route system. The high number of riders
provided by this institution coupled with their need for transit services bodes well increasing
the demand for a fixed route. Conversely, the drop in students during the summer months
compromises this viability. As such, a “peak-season” fixed route from September through May
with fixed route service being suspended during June-August may be an option to consider.
Financial considerations are the determinant factor in ascertaining the viability of a fixed route
system. BATA’s operational costs are $50 per hour so revenue from aggregate sources needs
to meet this level of expense. In addition, current federal funding criteria for fixed route
service providers require the service area to be 50,000 persons. The greater-Brookings service
territory is much smaller than this. Unless there are changes in federal law, federal funding will
not be available for fixed route service leaving it funding exclusively by local revenue sources.
Priority 2: Large community event shuttle services (21 votes)
BATA is already providing this service. Event organizers and promoters know BATA is
available on a contract basis to provide shuttle service for special events around the
community. Large event planning generally comprises a continuous shuttle run between large
parking lots and an event destination which does not have any, or has insufficient parking within
walking distance to the event. The Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and SDSU are the
primary event organizers for most large events that would need such service. The only
limitation would be events that are so large they demand more buses than BATA can spare
from the regular service; or buses larger than BATA’s fleet can provide. In the case of the
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
116
latter, larger capacity buses, such as school buses, may be an option. Most often, the large
event needs comprise regular shuttle service between the event and parking.
Priority 3: Commuter van pool services (19 votes)
Opportunities should be identified with major employers to coordinate park-and-ride
commuter and vanpool services for employees. Many large employers have many employees
working the same shifts that could organize vehicle pools dividing the community by
neighborhood allowing employees to utilize parking lots to leave their vehicle and transfer to a
car/vanpool vehicle to get to work. Church parking lots are ideally suited for park-and-ride lots
as they are less busy during the work week and are located throughout many neighborhoods
lessening drive time. Retail centers will likely make a portion of their parking lots available for
park-and-ride lots provided they do not occupy premium parking during the day. There is
obvious benefit to retailers when commuters conduct retail business before or after work
because their vehicle is at the lot. Car pool could be organized by employees. Van pools could
be provided by employers. The advantage to employers is lessening their requirement for
worksite parking lots and traffic congestion between shifts.
Priority 4: Demand response services (16 votes)
The demand for same-day transportation continues to increase and is offered by BATA for an
increased cost for this higher level of service. A cost differential should likely continue between
various service levels with more expensive services commanding a higher price. Since
Brookings tax cab service has reduced operations, the demand for same-day transportation has
increased. More than the other services, this type of service is based purely on economics and
needs to be profitable with revenues coming exclusively from ridership or the costs would be
partially subsidized to make the service more affordable. BATA and Brookings taxi cab can help
provide information about fee structures that are needed to be addressed with a subsidy if the
service is to be provided.
The component of Emergency Planning only received two (2) votes so it was dropped from
further consideration.
BATA priority; enhance existing service before expanding service
Since BATA is the most comprehensive service provider in the area, they are positioned to
best able to consider expansion of services such as these four priority areas. However, more
resources will be necessary to finance a higher level of service increasing subsidized service.
Currently, BATA’s operating expenses are averaged at $50 per hour. BATA has adopted a
strategic plan that supports enhancing existing services before expanding services. The
enhancement of such services is as follows:
a) Expand morning hours by adding 4:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m.
b) Add one driver and one dispatcher between 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
c) Expand to have one bus running nighttime hours for 24 hour coverage.
Special considerations for destination locations
Current plans for renovation and expansion of the Brookings Health System hospital provide a
unique opportunity to incorporate a transit drop-off center specifically designed to receive
patients arriving/departing on buses. Likewise, other locations such as clinics or others
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
117
experiencing a significant number of customers/clients by transit providers should consider
physical modifications such as reserved parking, ingress/egress lanes, weather-sheltered
canopies or drive-thrus.
Consistent with the SDSU masterplan to improve traffic, parking, and pedestrian mobility
around campus, locations for drop-off and pick-up sites for transit services will be provided.
The SDSU Innovation Campus, along with other employment clusters such as Daktronics, 3M,
and Larson Manufacturing, will need to be designated as destination locations for commuter use
either on a carpooling or fixed route program. For destinations that generate sufficient
ridership, a long-range goal should be to consider bus depots at such locations.
Demand response transit to Sioux Falls
BATA and Volunteer Service Bank (VSB) provide many demand response trips from Brookings
to Sioux Falls for two primary reasons. BATA’s demand is for medical appointments for
specialty medical services and trips to the Sioux Falls Airport. VSB provides many trips per
week to Sioux Falls almost exclusively for medical appointments. For BATA’s airport trips,
most are students without vehicles or who do not want to leave vehicles at the airport parking
needing trips home.
Essential Air Service
Brookings Municipal Airport was previously served with federally-subsidized air passenger
service twice daily to a limited number of regional destinations. Federal funding cuts in 2007
eliminated this service. However, funding was re-established in 2008 until the budget
expiration of September 30, 2009. The task of negotiating with a private carrier fell to the
South Dakota Department of Transportation, and the likelihood of contracting with a
commuter airline for such a short amount of time is problematic. Presently, even though
funding is in place, no carrier service exists. Essential Air Service was not an issue investigated
at length by the Transportation Board but it is a minor component of the overall transportation
picture for the community.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
118
Way-finding signage
The Board concluded the City of Brookings lacks adequate directional signage for motorists
visiting the community who are looking for specific points of interest. While some signage
exists along Interstate 29 and Highway 14 (6th Street) to direct visitors to certain locations, the
signage is not comprehensive and lacks a consistent and recognizable design, logo, or color
scheme.
The Board recommends the development of a system to install signage of specific attractions,
many of which are suggested below, to have a consistent “theme” so they are recognized as
“way-finding” signage. The destinations selected would be specifically those that are designed
to attract and assist visitors to the community by helping them navigate via directional arrows
from the interstate and Highway 14. Destinations would be civic, cultural, recreational, and
educational in nature. Signage that advertises businesses would be prohibited from this project.
The community will need to work closely with Department of Transportation officials for
location and specifications of such signage. SDDOT has strict regulations regarding design and
placement of such signage. Signage would have to be strategically placed to avoid “sign
pollution” and reader confusion and not overwhelm motorists
The following is a list of attractions that could be incorporated into a way-finding sign program.
The list is not exhaustive.
Brookings Municipal Airport Swiftel Center
Hillcrest Park & Aquatic Center Brookings Municipal Library
Brookings High School Mickelson Middle School
Camelot Intermediate School Pioneer Park
Fishback Soccer Complex SDSU- Inn. Campus Research Park
Southbrook Softball Complex SDSU – main entrance
Historic Downtown SDSU – McCrory Gardens
Chamber of Commerce/Visitor info SDSU - Art Museum
Edgebrook Golf Course SDSU – Coughlin Alumni Stadium
SD Children’s Museum SDSU – Performing Art Center
Larson Ice Arena SDSU – Frost Arena
Identifying specific locations and signage design are beyond the scope of this report. However,
it is recommended that a comprehensive way-finding signage program and its associated costs,
be developed and implemented.
Downtown Brookings, Inc. (DBI) has completed a plan that has identified many of these subject
locations with host signage locations around the community. It is recommended that
implementation of this initiative use the previous plan completed by DBI as a tool to coordinate
and complement a comprehensive way-finding signage program.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
119
Rural transportation issues
A delegation of individuals from Brookings County representing rural transportation and transit
issues attended the Easter Seals Mobility Planning Institute in Washington, DC April 20-24,
2008. The purpose of this Institute was to identify specific mobility issues facing rural areas;
then focus on a specific strategic plan to affect positive change on one issue.
The group identified three specific issues that needed to be addressed:
1) Increased hours of transportation service to include early morning and late evening.
2) Job access commuting for local industry, retail, and service employment from
outlying communities.
3) Availability of mobility/transportation options within the smaller communities to
meet the needs within their communities, as well as coordinating and commuting to
the larger communities for medical, social, transportation connections, and other
needs.
The group decided to focus on Item (3) as it was their consensus that transportation needs of
those who have no other option was of paramount importance. The sparse population in rural
areas and smaller communities cause a lack of sufficient critical mass to oftentimes justify the
operational feasibility of transit options. Yet, BATA continues to experience a slow but steady
increase is demand responses calls from rural areas. Although the amount of demand may be
less, a demand still exists. The group developed the following action plan as supplemental
recommendations:
1) Meet with Regional Mayors Association to address the issue and increase awareness.
2) Develop and deploy a survey within the communities of Volga, Bruce, White,
Aurora, Bushnell, Elkton, Estelline, Arlington, and Sinai requesting information and
interest in transit needs.
3) Identify specific funding sources for rural transit needs; state and federal grants and
appropriations, local matching funds, and non-governmental grant options.
4) Identify options for vehicles to address the needs; wheelchair accessible, vehicles
available through state grants, volunteer drivers, surplus law enforcement vehicles.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
120
Safe-Routes-To-Schools (SRTS) path/trail system
During the Board’s analysis, the community submitted a grant application to the South Dakota
Department of Transportation for the Safe-Routes-To-School program (SRTS). This program
provides funding to local units of government for the purpose of improving pedestrian systems
that connect neighborhoods to schools and improve related community safety.
The application was for $164, 480 in total costs; $34,100 for non-infrastructure and $130,380
for construction. The application identified routes for construction of new pathways and
improvements to existing pathways that improve safety and make the necessary origin and
destination connections required by the program. The grant was awarded in the amount of
$94,000. The reason for the reduction from the amount requested was a desire on the part of
the program to fund more projects even if they could not afford to fund all of them in their
entirety. Second, there were components of the application the program specifically did not
want to finance with the grant. The recipient can still include those amounts in the project with
other funding as long as SRTS grant funding is not used. For specific information about the
program, refer to the application.
It is recommended a sub-committee of those who worked on the original application analyze
the response from the funding agency and revise the original program to meet the needs of the
granting agency so the grant funds can still be accepted and the program can proceed even if it
needs to be revised.
The grant application period for the second round of SRTS funding will occur during the winter
of 2009. The City of Brookings should apply for more SRTS funding in an effort to expand the
work of the first grant award.
Bicycle pathway designation
A subcommittee of the Transportation Board along with assistance from the SDSU Student
Association developed a two-phase plan for bicycle designation routes along existing streets.
Phase I includes on-campus routes and limited routes in the immediate neighborhoods
bordering the campus. Phase II expands the designation system to include cross-community
connections to major public amenities and facilities as well as the City of Brookings trail and
pathway system.
Unlike traditional bicycle routes typically part of an existing park system which are usually
viewed as recreational and leisure in purpose, the designation of bicycle lanes on existing street
systems are viewed as an alternative form of transportation to motor vehicles. For this reason,
they typically follow major transportation corridors.
Modifications include painting/striping of lane designations on existing streets and signage.
Designations of bike lanes for both phases are designated Exhibit F.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
121
Projected costs are as follows, excluding signage which is not yet determined:
Phase I: City streets adjacent to campus $38,016
On-campus streets $42,566
On-campus bicycle racks $30,000
TOTAL SDSU PAYMENT $110,572
City streets near campus $67,584
Signage TBD
TOTAL CITY PAYMENT $67,584
Phase II: City cross-community streets $208,616
Signage TBD
TOTAL CITY PAYMENT $208,616
TOTAL PROJECT COST, BOTH PHASES $386,272 plus signage
The Brookings City Council has endorsed the plan conceptually and directed staff to pursue
planning and engineering review of the proposal from October, 2008 to February, 2009 with
construction during the early part of the 2009 construction season. Phase I is to be complete
by July 1, 2009. Phase II is not yet scheduled. The Transportation Board endorsed the project
at their October 21 meeting.
During the project review period, city staff will analyze the proposed plan to examine vehicle
and bicycle capacity, intersection geometrics, signage, parking, lane designations, destination
connections, and the possibility of creating one-way streets. The City’s Traffic Safety
Committee will also review the proposal. Since parking restrictions may need to be modified in
certain areas, public hearings will likewise need to be held.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
122
Financial considerations
Most service providers operate on a combination of funding sources to meet capital and
operational needs. Such sources include user fees, governmental appropriations, and donations
from individuals and organizations such as the United Way and the SDSU Student Activity fund.
Specialized and mass transit services will continue to need funding beyond user fees as the
economics of providing the service will not make it self-funding. Similarly, private
transportation, in reality, also requires subsidization in the form of streets, roads, and bridges
through taxes. Public funding for mass transit has, and likely will remain in place, albeit in
varying degrees, because mass transit is usually considered an essential service for a community
and a key indicator of a community’s quality of life.
As the largest local mass transit provider, BATA receives 50 percent of it’s funding from the
federal government with a requirement that the remaining 50 percent be matched locally.
BATA meets that requirement with user fees (fares), donations, and contributions from the
City of Brookings and Brookings County. In 2009, funding from the City of Brookings and the
County of Brookings is budgeted at $60,000 and $32,000 respectively. The City of Brookings
has also budgeted $5,000 for the SDSU Safe Ride program. SDSU has budgeted $10,000 for
the Safe Ride program.
Funding will continue to be a challenge for operations with growing demand for more and
expanded services in the face of downward pressure on fares in order to maintain affordability
for users. It is estimated that BATA requires $50 per hour in operational expenses. The ability
to expand services will only widen the gap between revenue and expenses as increased
subsidization will be required. Other service providers relying on donations or other
speculative sources of revenue will face similar budget challenges, especially in light of a weak
economy and increased fuel prices.
With regard to capital, BATA’s capital requirements are met with the same 80 percent federal,
20 percent local match for replacement of buses, dispatching/radio equipment, and buildings and
facilities. BATA buses are on a ten-year depreciation schedule.
The Safe-Routes-To-Schools grant program is a welcome and much-needed boost in federal-to-
state funding that did not require a local match. Still, the first-year award was substantially less
than the grant request and the program remains in place for subsequent year’s funding. The
Way-Finding signage issue is not budgeted and will need to be prioritized in the City’s five-year
capital improvement program for long-range funding.
The Bike Lane designation phases are not funded to their full level prescribed in the plan. The
SDSU portion is funded but the City portion is only funded to a level of $10,000 for 2009.
Additional city sources and donations will need to augment this budget if the bike lane
construction schedule is to be met.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
123
Conclusion
The future of local transportation and transit services for the Greater Brookings area contains
both opportunities and challenges. Assisted by two reports from North Dakota State
University, the area is well-positioned to seize these opportunities and overcome these
challenges. One report addressed potential fixed routes projected for the future if demand
warrants, and the second report focused more exclusively on transit issues faced by SDSU, and
the university impact on the larger picture.
These reports made a series of recommendations; some of which were rejected by the
Transportation Board while others were adopted. The Board determined no significant
duplications existed. Rather, any minor duplication in service levels is desirable, and perhaps
needed, to provide options for riders with special needs.
In addition, the Transportation Board addressed other issues related to improving the trail and
pathway system connecting schools and neighborhoods through the successful Safe-Routes-to-
Schools grant application. Way-finding signage was suggested as a future goal to improve
mobility through the community, primarily for visitors. The bike lane designation is also
recommended as an alternative transportation mode utilizing existing surface street systems.
Funding for capital and operating needs will continue to be the primary challenge as capital and
operating expenses for transportation and transit services competes for funding from a growing
and expansive list of other public policy providers.
Finally, the Transportation Board considers this report as a road map for decision-making and
implementation of the ideas and suggestions contained therein. The Board plans to revise and
update this report every two years to insure it’s viability for helping to guide the decision-
making process of these crucial services.
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
124
RESOLUTION NO. 90-07
A RESOLUTION CREATING THE BROOKINGS TRANSPORTATION BOARD
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKINGS
WHEREAS, in order to identify opportunities for improved transportation efficiency
as measured by increased levels of service or decreased cost, especially through coordination
among transportation providers in Brookings, and further to provide oversight and evaluation
of the success of coordinated transportation efforts, and to provide advice and information to
other organizations on a regular or as needed-basis, the City of Brookings hereby creates a
Brookings Transportation Board, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as
follows:
Brookings Transportation Board
Section 1. Creation/Name. There is hereby created a transportation board for the
City of Brookings. The transportation board will be referred to as the Brookings
Transportation Board.
Section 2. Purpose/Mandate. The purpose of the Brookings Transportation Board
is to identify opportunities for improved efficiency as measured by increased levels of service or
decreased cost, especially through coordination among transportation providers in Brookings.
The Brookings Transportation Board shall provide oversight and evaluation of the success of
coordinated transportation efforts as well as provide advice and information to other
organizations on a regular or as needed-basis.
Section 3. Manner of appointment, composition, terms.
(a) Members of the Brookings Transportation Board shall be appointed by the Mayor,
with the advice and consent of the City Council, for three-year terms that
commence in January. Members may be appointed for additional terms not
exceeding three years each. The initial terms of office shall be staggered in 1, 2 and
3 year increments.
(b) The Brookings Transportation Board shall consist of thirteen (13) members, who
shall be appointed with due regard to representation from the following areas:
1. City of Brookings
2. County of Brookings
3. Brookings Health Systems
4. Brookings Committee for People who have Disabilities
5. Brookings Public School System
6. East Central Mental Health
7. Downtown Brookings Inc.
8. South Dakota State University Administration
9. South Dakota State University Student Association
10. South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
125
11. ADVANCE
12. Senior Activity Center
13. Citizen-At-Large
(c) Ex-officio, non-voting members shall be appointed to serve on the Brookings
Transportation Board from the following areas: City (City Engineer, ADA
Coordinator), all transportation service providers.
Section 4. Qualifications of members. The members of the Brookings
Transportation Board shall not hold any elective office in city government.
Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy in the membership of the Brookings
Transportation Board shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as provided for
appointment.
Section 6. Meetings; chairman. The Brookings Transportation Board shall regularly
hold meetings at such times and places as it shall determine. It shall select a chair from its
members, and such other officers as it deems appropriate, to serve for a term of one year.
Section 7. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Brookings Transportation
Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of its business.
Section 8. Duties; powers. The Brookings Transportation Board shall have the
following powers and duties:
(a) Advise the City Council, City Manager and staff concerning transportation matters
with the city of Brookings and surrounding area.
(b) Advise the City Council, City Manager and staff concerning the city’s public
transportation budgetary needs and uses; review policies and operations of public
transit providers who receive public funds; and suggest changes to policies and
operations of public transit providers to reflect needs of the community.
(c) Facilitate coordination of public transit providers.
Passed and approved on the 11th day of December, 2007.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST:
Scott D. Munsterman, Mayor
Shari L. Thornes, City Clerk
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
126
TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEMBERS
Teresa McKnight
CEO/Executive Director of SDSU Innovation Campus/Growth Partnership
Representing Citizen-at-large
Art Conners
City of Brookings – Park & Recreation Department
Representing Senior Activity Center
Terrell Spence
Director of Operations ADVANCE
Representing ADVANCE
Jerry Raabe
State of SD, Division of Rehabilitation
Representing SD Dept. of Vocational Rehabilitation
Tyler Luckhurst
SDSU State and Local Government Chair
Representing SDSU Student Association
Dean Kattelmann
SDSU, Asst. VP Facilities Manager
Representing SDSU Administration
Robb Rasmussen
Sioux River Bicycles & Fitness
Representing Downtown Brookings, Inc.
Michael Forgy
Clinical Director of East Central Mental Health
Representing East Central Mental Health
Dr. Roger DeGroot
Supt. Brookings School District
Representing Brookings School System
Nancy Hartenhoff-Crooks
SDSU Disabilities Coordinator
Representing Disability Committee
Rob Jones
Business Owner of Slumberland
Representing Brookings Health System
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
127
Dennis Falken
Retired
Representing Brookings County
Jeffrey Weldon
City Manager
Representing the City of Brookings
Ex-Officio members (non-voting)
Shari Thornes
City Clerk / City ADA Coordinator
Jackie Lanning
City Engineer
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
128
SERVICE PROVIDERS
Brooks Behrend
Brookings Taxi
Don Boone
Volunteer Service Bank
Charlene Carothers
Easy Cab
Brenda Schweitzer
Brookings Area Transit Authority
Ellie Trautman
Safe Ride
Transportation Providers Summary Brookings, SD Dated March 17, 2008 Prepared by Brookings City Clerk’s Department Business Days of week Hours Same day service? (y/n) Rate Schedule # vehicles and # of accessible vehicles accessibility training drivers (y/n) Designated Routes (y/n) If yes, route location Coverage area (list cities/areas) City Subsidy Amount (2008) BATA 7 M-S 7:30am-10pm, Sun 7:30am-6pm Yes Brookings: $5 – same day, $2 – prescheduled; Volga, Aurora, Bushnell: $8; White, Elkton, Bruce, Lake Campbell, Arlington: $20; Sioux Falls: $15 on Mondays, other days by arrangement: $1.75/mile 15 vehicles, 12 are accessible Passenger Assistance Safety & Security Training (PASS), State certified – 2 day course (CPR, First Aid, Defensive Driving), All drivers have CDL 10 stops around Brookings M/W/F from 9:30am-3:30pm, $1 per stop Brookings County, Sioux Falls trips: school, Medicaid, route every Monday $50,000 Brookings Taxi F/S 8pm-3am Yes $6 for one person, $8 for 2 or more people 1, none accessible Yes No 50 mile radius $0 Easy Cab Th/F/S 9pm-3am Yes Increased fee per person- From Bar: $3, $4, $6, $8, $10 In Brookings: $5, $8, $9, $11, $13 Volga & Aurora: $10, $13, $15, $17, $18, $19 4 total, none accessible Yes for Charlene (received from ADVANCE) No 50 mile radius $0 Safe Ride Th/F/S 10pm-3am Yes No charge 2-3 buses, all are accessible Yes, same as BATA training Yes, 2 routes that make stops around campus and town City of Brookings $5,000 Volunteer Service Bank M-F 8am-noon, some afternoons Yes No charge, donations Volunteers’ vehicles, none accessible No No Brookings County, Sioux Falls, Watertown $0
$10,000 Plan
1
Proposed Phase 1 Bike Lanes
1. 7th Ave. to Medary Ave. along 11th St.
(Berg & Baily Halls to Medary)
2. North Campus Drive to 8th St. along Medary Ave.
Campus thoroughfare
3. Western Ave. to 20th Ave. along 8th St.
Runs length of 8th St. – connects many
neighborhoods with the intersections of 8th
St. / Medary Ave. and 8th St. / 16th Ave.
4. 8th St. to 3rd St. along 20th Ave.
Connects the neighborhoods further South
to 8th St.
5. 9th St. to 11th St. along 22nd Ave.
Connects the Blue Apartments to 11th St.
6. 16th Ave. to 22nd Ave. along 11th St.
Brings the 22nd Ave. traffic to the NE corner
of campus
7. 3rd St. to 9th St. along 12th Ave.
Provides for an alternative N/S route,
keeping bikes off of Medary Ave.
8. 1st Ave. to Medary Ave. along Harvey Dunn St.
2
3
Blue: Bike Lane w/o Parking
Blue (Dashed): Alternative Route [to a nearby parallel route]
Light Green: Bike Lane w/Parking
Dark Green: Shared Lane
Red: Existing Bike Path
Natzel
4
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
136
Other Business
15. Discussion regarding City of Brookings acquisition of
South Dakota Department of Transportation Property (I-
29 & Highway 14).
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
We are contractually obligated to inform the South Dakota Department of
Transportation if we wish to exercise the option of purchasing the DOT property by
the end of this year. When the property became available, the State of South Dakota
gave the first option to purchase this 26-acre parcel of property to the City of
Brookings for a price of $4 million. The reason for the purchase was to landbank a site
for future retail and commercial development whereby the City would re-sell newly-
created parcels for such development. To that end, we created a Tax Increment
District which included this parcel as a means of making the property more attractive
for development.
The original deadline for the option was December 2007 but the state gave us a one-
year extension to December 2008.
While I believe the policy reasons for acquiring this property are still valid, I also believe
the price of $4 million is excessive in this economic climate, and would not be in the
best financial interest of the City given our other priorities. As such, I am
recommending we reject the option to exercise the purchase agreement and notify
Secretary Darin Bergquist of the South Dakota Department of Transportation of such.
Action: Motion to reject purchase agreement, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
City Manager Recommendation: reject purchase agreement
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
147
Other Business:
16. Executive Session for purposes of legal matters.
SDCL 1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings.
Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purpose of:
1. Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness
of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee.
The term “employee” does not include any independent contractors;
2. Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the
educational program of a student;
3. Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal
counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
4. Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a
business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, where public
discussions would be harmful to the competitive position of the business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open official
meeting. An executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a majority vote of the
members of such body present and voting, and discussion during the closed meeting is
restricted to the purpose specified in the closure motion. Nothing in 1-25-1 or this
section may be construed to prevent an executive or closed meeting if the federal or
state Constitution or the federal or state statutes require or permit it. A violation of
this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Action: Motion to enter executive session – voice vote
Motion to leave executive session – voice vote
City Council Packet
December 9, 2008
148
17. Adjourn.