HomeMy WebLinkAboutBHPCMinutes_2018_02_081
Brookings Historic Preservation Commission
February 8, 2018 Minutes
A meeting of the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission was held on Thursday, February 8, 2018 at
5:00 p.m. in City Hall. Members present: Angie Boersma, Greg Heiberger, Carrie Kuhl, Janet Gritzner,
Leah Brink, Janet Merriman, Jessica Garcia Fritz and Virginia James. Absent: Dennis Willert. Others
present: Shari Thornes and Laurie Carruthers. Guests included: BKD Architects Bruce Schwartzman and
Anthony Enright, Sheriff Marty Stanwick, Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe, County Commissioners Lee Ann
Pierce and Larry Jensen, Rick & Joanie Holm, Donn & Yvonne Fetzer, Pat Fishback and Mary Negstad.
Chairperson Boersma called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A motion was made by Heiberger,
seconded by Kuhl, to approve the agenda. All present voted yes, motion carried. A motion was made by
Merriman, seconded by Brink, to approve the January 11, 2018 minutes. All present voted yes; motion
carried.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT AND ELECTION OF 2018 OFFICERS
Merriman reported the nominating committee met and made the recommendation for Angie Boersma as
Chair and Carrie Kuhl as Vice-Chair. A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Brink, to appoint
Angie Boersma as Chair and Carrie Kuhl as Vice-Chair. All present voted yes; motion carried.
DISCUSSION AND OFFICIAL COMMENT ON AN 11.1 REVIEW CASE REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BROOKINGS COUNTY JAIL
EXPANSION
Property Address: 314 6th Avenue & 315 7th Avenue
Property Owner: Brookings County
Applicant: Bruce Schwartzman, AIA, BKV Group, on behalf of Brookings County
Year Built 1912
Historic District/Listing:
Brookings County Courthouse – Individually Listed (1976)
Brookings Central Residential Historic District – List in 1986 and expanded 1997, borders the
courthouse grounds on the north, east, and south sides
Historic Carnegie Public Library – Individually Listed (1980), is located west of the courthouse
square
Category: Contributing
Architect/Style: C.E. Bell, Tyrie and Chapman
Renaissance Revival style.
Project Description:
The applicant is requesting to construct a 17,500 square foot addition to the existing jail and Law
Enforcement Center to the north of the existing building along with a remodeling of approximately
4,750 square feet of the existing Center and jail.
The applicant’s submittal reads as follows: “the new building will be one story with a mezzanine level
at the jail housing for a total height of approximately 22 feet on the west side and 27’ 8” on the east
side. The exterior façade will be clad in architectural cast stone in a color and finish to closely match
both the limestone of the existing historic Courthouse and the cast stone of the vertical circulation
addition to the east of the Courthouse. The exterior will be articulated with horizontal banding and a
stone cornice which relate to the architectural style of the Courthouse without directly copying
2
building elements. Windows and doors will be of similar scale, material, and finish to those on the
Courthouse in order to visually relate without directly copying.
The west façade has been held back approximately 6’ from the farthest West façade of the
Courthouse so as not to compete with the prominence of the historic building. The proposed new
building is sited approximately 17’ to the north of the Courthouse and does not touch the courthouse
on any side. With the exception of 2 to 3 existing trees, which will need to be removed in order to
construct the new building, all existing landscape including many mature trees directly to the West of
the proposed new building will remain. As shown in the photos provided, this landscape buffer allows
the west façade of the Courthouse to retain its prominence on the block and reduces any perceived
visual impact from the new building. On the North, new trees, shrubs and plantings along the sidewalk
will improve the pedestrian experience along 4th St. and an extended landscape area between 4th and
the sidewalk will allow for additional boulevard trees between the new building and this primarily
residential street.
On the east façade, the heavy metal cornice on the existing Law Enforcement Center will be replaced
with a lighter, less prominent cornice to better relate to the entire County campus, and the existing
brick will be stained to more closely relate to the existing courthouse and new Detention Center.
The new addition would eliminate the existing concrete masonry enclosed outdoor recreation yard
topped with razor wire and a service drive currently enclosed with a 6’ high fence topped with barb
wire.”
SDCL 1-19A-11.1 Review Required
SDCL 1-19A-11.1 requires local governments to extend certain protections to historic properties
listed on national, state or local registers.
Local governments are not to issue a permit for any project that would encroach upon, damage
or destroy a designated property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that would prevent
such encroachment, damage or destruction.
Cities have both the authority and duty to deny a permit for any project adversely affecting an
historic property if there is a feasible and prudent alternative that will eliminate or mitigate the
adverse impact.
The State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the application and based on the information
provided, felt the project has the potential to encroach upon, damage, or destroy historic property
that is included in the National Register of Historic Places. They requested an abbreviated case report
responding to questions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 on November 16, 2017. For item #10, they
requested the Brookings Historic Preservation Commission review and comment on the abbreviated
case report within 180 days of receipt prior to submittal to the SHPO.
Process Overview
The attached Flow Chart outlines the following steps in the SDCL 1-19A-11.1 review process. All 11.1
review application and resource documents are also available on the City of Brookings website (City
of Brookings 11.1 Review Process Documents).
1. Initial Notification - The first step is for the City to formally notify the State of a pending project.
It does so by submitting the property owner’s application (City Application) to the State Historic
Preservation Office for review. (Application submitted 11/13/17)
3
2. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review - If the SHPO determines that the project will
encroach upon, damage, or destroy a historic property, then the project may not proceed until a
few requirements have been met, which can include completing a case report, Commission
review, and public comment. (SHPO response dated 11/16/17)
3. Case Report Submittal – Applicant submits case report and supporting materials to the BHPC for
review. (Applicant submitted case report dated 1/19/18 and received on 1/22/18)
4. BHPC Review - The Brookings Historic Preservation Commission will evaluate materials provided
by the applicant, request additional information, seek public input, and submit its final official
comment to the State Historic Preservation Office. The Commission will consider if the applicant
has fully addressed all feasible and prudent alternatives, demonstrated appropriate planning to
minimize harm, used specific and measurable factors for analysis, and provided documentation
that has been developed by professionals experienced in community planning, design,
construction and rehabilitation of historical structures.
All of these questions and documentation are all outlined in the Case Report Standards noted
above. Question #7 is of particular importance. An applicant needs to demonstrate what other
alternatives were considered, the criteria by which those alternatives were evaluated, and why
they may have been eliminated. Feasible and prudent alternatives are specific to each situation.
Examples of feasible and prudent alternatives for other projects have included, but are not
limited to, a different use, scaled back use, relocation, rezoning, integration into new
construction, selling, not doing the project, mothballing the structure, and many others.
Case Report #7: A historic preservation plan or description and evaluation of all feasible and prudent alternatives
which a state entity or political subdivision proposes in order to minimize adverse effects of a project on historic
property and alternatives which the state entity or political subdivision has examined and rejected. The reasons for
rejection must be included. This section of the case report must clearly substantiate that all possible efforts to minimize
harm to the historic property have been undertaken. Alternatives to aspects of the project which may adversely affect
the historic property must:
(a) Receive consideration based on factual reports, research, tried methods, and professional and lay preservation
advice;
(b) Explore alternatives beyond the immediate project, taking into account broad community or regional issues in
which the historic resources may play a contributing role;
(c) Take into account the impact of potential adverse effects on surrounding historic resources, community
preservation plans, and long-range community opportunities;
(d) Be based on professional assessments of the value and basic structural condition of the affected property and
estimates of a range of rehabilitation or mitigative options prepared by people experienced in historical preservation
work; and
(e) Provide adequate periods of time for information to be prepared and for preservation options to be attempted;
The Commission will also evaluate if the project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation (SDAR 24:52:07:02), in the case of an addition or new construction, the
Commission will also consider SDAR 24:52:07:04 New Construction & Additions in Historic
Districts.
5. BHPC Comments - The Commission’s final comments are then sent to the State for comment.
The State will issue its final comments on the project and if it finds the project will damage,
destroy, or encroach upon a historic property, the City cannot issue the permit until it has made a
written determination (see case report for requirements).
4
6. Final Decision - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Brookings Historic
Preservation Commission (BHPC) do not have final approval of the project. The City of Brookings
makes the final decision to approve or deny the permit.
7. SHPO Notification - If the City makes a decision to approve the permit, it must give the State an
additional 10 day notice along with the complete record of factors considered, before they would
be allowed to issue a permit.
Resources
1. Case Report Standards: http://www.cityofbrookings.org/DocumentCenter/View/2833
2. Secretary of Interior Standards for Design http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm)
3. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf
4. South Dakota Attorney General’s Opinion: http://www.cityofbrookings.org/DocumentCenter/View/2834
5. SD 24:52:07:04 for New Construction & Additions:
http://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=24:52:07:04
6. Other alternatives and supporting facts
ACTION: The BHPC has been asked by the SHPO to provide official comment on the case report. The
Commission may:
1) Determine insufficient information in case report to provide comment, request additional
information from the applicant and table action;
2) Determine further review of options is needed and table action;
3) Agree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments,
4) Disagree with the findings of the case report and provide additional comments; or
5) Decline to comment on the findings of the case report.
Bruce Schwartzman and Anthony Enright from BKV Group provided a project overview. The proposed jail
expansion will not be taller than the Courthouse and respects the Courthouse’s elevation. Initially, they
did not consider the materials for the project, but have changed them to utilize limestone and other
detail features, which compliment the Courthouse. The law enforcement center is not going anywhere. It
is better to have a unified rather than hodgepodge expansion. The plan is to paint the existing law
enforcement center.
There have been problems with moving inmates, so they looked at expansion options north and south
from the Courthouse. With the traffic from 3rd Street, they choose to expand along 4th Street. The existing
law enforcement center will be renovated. After public comment, they researched five offsite options,
but the County determined the onsite option was the best. The plan is to break ground in September or
October 2018 or spring of 2019. If construction waits until 2019, there is a 5-6% inflation rate on the
project.
The current law enforcement center was built in 1976. The County received many comments on the
expansion’s impact to the walkability of the neighborhood. They decided to remove the parking along 4th
Street and replace it with landscaping to reduce the negative impact to the neighborhood. The expansion
will not connect the jail to the Courthouse. The first variance application failed with a zero lot line. The
plan was modified and included offsite alternatives. The project initially cost $10.8 million. With the
additional design elements, the project cost is $12.6. The offsite cost is $14.1. Offsite with a court space
would be $17.9 million. County Commissioners and staff visited with Roberts and Hughes Counties about
their offsite jails and both counties advised to build the jail onsite with the Courthouse.
5
Chair Boersma asked if the Historic Preservation Commissioners had any questions specific to the project.
Merriman questioned the offsite versus onsite correction officer staffing costs. She noted the cost
comparison is not present for the offsite option versus the proposed new onsite facility. Brookings County
Jail Administrator Bart Sweebe produced the projected staffing costs and would need to look at the
numbers to clarify.
Heiberger questioned if the current jail was renovated in 1976, will the County be back for another
expansion in 15 years to tear down the current jail or request major renovations. Schwartzman advised
that with the current inmate projections, the proposed project would last at least 20 years. Heiberger
asked what the life span of the current jail is since it is 40 years old. Schwartzman advised that it would
need to be maintained, it has structural integrity. The Sheriff’s office has not grown. The space is needed
for inmates.
Boersma questioned the cost of construction. Option 1 is $350/square foot new construction onsite and
$200/square foot to renovate the on existing jail. Option 1A is $410/square foot for the onsite additional
façade treatments. Boersma noted this is a drastic cost per square foot. The offsite construction should
cost less per square feet for new construction. However, in the projections provided for the offsite
location, new construction costs $370/square foot. If onsite construction costs $350/square foot, how
can offsite construction cost $370? Boersma questioned if there is a miscalculation. Enright responded
that the property purchase could be the increase. Boersma responded the property purchase is a
separate line in the cost estimate. Enright advised the number could be increased because of site
development. Boersma noted that is also a separate line item. Boersma stated that if the County is
making an argument about the feasibility of a project based on cost, especially tax payer cost, the
Commission needs accurate information in order to evaluate this case correctly. Schwartzman advised
that BKV is working on four jail projects and the cost of construction on all four is between $350-
$400/square feet. James stated the Commission needs accurate records during these meetings when it is
taxpayers’ dollars at hand.
Boersma questioned the impact of the parking removal along 4th Street. Enright responded that was the
city’s suggestion and no additional parking is planned. The additional staff would park at the lot north of
the facility. Inmates do not require parking.
Boersma asked if offsite options were considered at the beginning of the entire process. Schwartzman
responded offsite options were not considered until after the public hearing. To renovate the existing
building would be the least cost option. Boersma replied that the issues of massing, scale and set backs
are self-imposed limitations based on the forgone conclusion that the jail had to be onsite. Enright
responded that every design project has limitations and opportunities. This is not bad, it gives them the
opportunity to design a project that is harmonious with the Courthouse. He handed out BKD project
examples of new construction with historic buildings.
Brink asked how many South Dakota counties have jails. Schwartzman replied around 30 counties have
jails. Brink questioned how many of those counties have jails attached or next to the courthouse versus
being offsite. BKD did not have that number.
Gritzner asked if the present jail would remain even if they county choose to build offsite. BKD responded
yes.
6
Heiberger asked if there is any discussion to remove the current jail in order to keep the massing down
and build on that space with a new facility. BKD responded that the price to house the inmates during
construction would be great. Heiberger asked if the county considered constructing on the south side of
the current site, then remove the current jail for parking. Enright replied that they did consider the south
side, but it would take up more footprint to make it work. Heiberger asked if the additional staffing was
$5 million or $15 million. BKD could not answer. Heiberger responded that the county was okay with
increasing the cost by $2 million to fit within the historic neighborhood. If you take that $2 million and the
staffing number comes out to be $5 million, it is a very different conversation as there would only be a $3
million difference over the cost for 20 years. Historic preservation does not think in 20 year windows,
rather 75-100+ year windows. Enright responded that it was definitely not $5 million. The County
Commission did not take the decision lightly; it involved a lot of data.
Merriman noted SDAR 25.52.704 has specific requirements for height and width as compared to existing
and adjacent buildings and none of the drawings submitted has dimensions. She requested very specific
dimensions as to massing, height and width as compared to the properties along the north and east sides
of the street.
Brink questioned if the jail would be built offsite, would the 24/7 program stay at the current location.
Enright replied that it would be a transportation hardship for the participants. If an offsite location was
built, the 24/7 program would stay at the current location.
Boersma opened the discussion up to public comment and asked the proponents to comment.
Lee Ann Pierce Chair of County Commission wanted to respond to what the architects said. The County
Commission did consider offsite options, but just in the operational aspect. They felt it was their statutory
duty to provide court services onsite and never performed a cost analysis of onsite versus onsite options.
The County owns the parking lot with 70 parking spaces at the 5th Street Gym. Inmates, staff or overflow
from courthouse will utilize that lot. Pierce has experiences working in other counties where jail is not in
the same place. She stated that offsite locations are lost opportunities, and it does not work well.
Sheriff Marty Stanwick advised parking has not been an issue, even on high traffic court days. If parking
becomes a problem, they can accommodate or change the court schedule. The inmate population has
changed since he started in 1976. They used to have dorm space, but now need more space for felons.
The jail needs a classification system for the inmates’ space. When the new part of the jail is complete,
the old part of the jail will be remodeled for safe rooms for mental health and medical separation. If
Brookings keeps the current trend, the county will have plenty of jail space to rent to the surrounding
counties. It is hard to predict the future, but he does know Brookings will need a treatment facility. He
cannot predict if the jail will last for 30 years. However, in 30 years, the county will need to build a
courthouse and he does not know where that will be located. The present Courthouse could be a
museum.
Heiberger asked if Sheriff Stanwick was an officer when the current jail was built in 1976. Sheriff Stanwick
started in 1977. Heiberger asked Stanwick if he would have envisioned the current inmate population in
2018. Stanwick replied no. Heiberger asked what does 2048 look like? Stanwick advised that is a good
question. Heiberger elaborated that feasible and prudent alternatives have a phased approach. The
County is building the proposed onsite jail around a 1970’s building that will be remodeled. What he just
heard is the County is building this structure to rent out spaces to other counties and mental health cases
7
that are pushed off from the hospital. Stanwick advised that he cannot predict the 2048 inmate
population, but he believes the focus would prevention and treatment at that time.
Larry Jensen is a County Commissioner and sat on the Jail Expansion Committee. In 30 years this facility
could become a regional option for juvenile or women. It will be used. As for costs, he is not happy the
numbers did not match. He does know that two facilities cost more to run than one. He hopes the
concerns and issues can be worked out, so the county can work through its project.
Boersma asked for the opponents to comment.
Pat Fishback stated that building in an area, which includes the Carnegie Library, Children’s Museum of
South Dakota, a historic church, historic former school building, residential historic district and is adjacent
to the National Register listed Courthouse, warrants precision planning. Community members would
naturally expect a long term, thoughtful, well-outlined plan to solve the critical needs of the jail. What
does seem to have been well developed in the process of meeting the county’s needs, was a space needs
study. Building onto the jail in the middle of town and asking for a variance seemed unusual. At first the
space specified to meet the jail’s needs was presented with a zero lot line setback. That variance was
denied at the June 1 Board of Adjustment meeting. The public only heard one piece of information
regarding the next steps from June 1 until September 5, 2017. She is a former member of the Historic
Preservation Commission. Often the public blames the Historic Preservation Commission for hold-ups.
However, the Historic Preservation Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office are the last
people to see most of the projects. That three month hold up was from the County Commission. From
the meeting on September 5, the community learned the setbacks were smaller, but residents were
assured that in limiting the space, no essential functions would be impacted. It appears the County needs
are greater than this space will permit. She wonders if the architectural drawing is a reality or an artist’s
concept. It is lacks detail. In regards to the feasibility of all alternatives considered, she questions if the
information on offsite options provides an accurate comparison. First the public was told 10 sites were
considered. Those were numbered on architectural drawings as 6 through 10. The next drawings
provided limited data for sites 1 through 5. The drawings with offsite options changed again from the
September 5 County Commission Meeting to the September 11 Open House. She envisions many change
orders in the future with limited oversite for changes and certainly no requirement for public awareness
of those changes. The options for offsite expansion seem legitimate and worth further pursuing. Fishback
is aware of another county with an offsite jail and the courtroom is located within the offsite jail. The
judge holds court twice a week or as necessary – one day court is held at the courthouse, one day court is
held at the offsite jail. She encourages pursuit of alternatives to the current onsite expansion.
Yvonne Fetzer stated that of the 66 counties in South Dakota, only 22 have jails. Other counties share jails
with other counties and do not have the convenience of a jail.
Mary Negstad is a former County Commissioner. Brookings has one of the most beautiful courthouses.
She has always viewed it as a park setting; not a jail or surrounded by a jail. The present jail could be used
for booking and then transport inmates to the offsite jail. An offsite jail would have more land and not
have the confines of the onsite location. Brookings has grown. The offsite location is better because the
jail would be remote and not in a residential area.
Nancy Flynn provided public comment by email:
After reviewing the Case Review Form for Historical Preservation projects, and focusing my attention on
question 7, I feel that not enough time was spent by the county commissioners exploring the option of
8
building off site. I feel that the county commissioners don’t have a handle on the values of this
community. There has not been a City report made to the County on the impact of an expanded county
jail in the heart of the city. The mutual respect of the two separate governing bodies will hurt the vision of
the city. The City Planning Long Range Report/Plan that is to be presented soon states that this
community appreciates the small town feel. If anything, increasing the green space around the
courthouse, not taking it away physically or visually enhances the “small town feel.” This is our
opportunity as a community to take the jail out of the core of the Historical District. I am aware that the
current jail would still need to be renovated to make an offsite larger jail work with the courthouse and
feel that the exterior enhancement of that building and surrounding space would better suit our
Courthouse. Please pass these thought on to the rest of the Brookings Historical Commission. Nancy
Flynn, 711 Fourth St.
Boersma closed the public comment and asked for a motion based on the information provided.
A motion was made by Merriman, seconded by Heiberger, to table any action on the Brookings County
Jail Expansion as there is not significant enough information to make a comment. In order to take action
on this matter, the Historic Preservation Commission requests the applicant provide the following
information:
1) The costs of the proposed project as compared to the off-site options, to include
construction, operational and other investment costs;
2) The construction costs to verify figures provided in case report;
3) Building dimensions, to include height and width, setbacks, and comparisons of the
project to those of the courthouse, as well as the properties to the north and east of the
proposed project; and
4) Projection numbers to determine the timeframe until the proposed facility would need
replacement/additional space or whether a phased approach to moving facilities off site
could be investigated as a prudent and feasible alternative.
All present voted yes; motion carried.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DRAFT CITY COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN
The Community Development Department is seeking input on the draft Comprehensive Master Plan.
Comments and input must be submitted by Tuesday, February 13th.
http://cityofbrookings.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6018
A Comprehensive Master Plan public open house is scheduled on February 12th from 12-1 and 5-7 p.m.
The HPC will have a special meeting the week of February 12 to respond to the draft Comprehensive
Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOALS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY 2018-2023 STRATEGIC PLAN
City Management Team’s draft 2018-2023 Strategic Plan – The City Manager distributed a draft strategic
plan to the City Management Team on January 10th for review. The plan will be used as the baseline for
the City Council’s May 11th Strategic Planning Retreat. It includes three core themes:
A) Provide high quality delivery of basic, core public services that are efficient and effective through
a well-managed and high performing city government.
B) Develop initiatives that promote and expand quality community growth and economic strength
that is diverse and sustainable.
C) Develop initiatives that establish unique community identity characteristics
9
The City Manager has tentatively identified initiatives in each theme, including the following that pertains
to historic preservation. Staff recommends the BHPC submit recommended goals for the City Council to
consider for this initiative. Members discussed a variety of ideas to include:
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE C-2:
Continue to advance efforts that support appreciation and preservation of historic structures.
GOAL C-2-1:
GOAL C-2-1:
City Manager will meet with City Council on March 13, and it would be helpful to provide the HPC goals.
PROJECT/ISSUE UPDATES & REPORTS
A. 2018/2019 National Park Service funding application
Final input is needed on recommended projects to include in the funding application.
Thornes will submit a request for basic funding, travel and completion of current projects.
B. Events/Special Projects
Mayor’s Awards: The tentative date for the combined Mayor’s Award event is Thursday,
September 27, 2018.
Green Drinks/Register Article – The BHPC needs to finalize the presenter, topic and title in
time for the Sustainability Council’s February 14 meeting. Boersma will be the presenter at
the April 26 Green Drinks at 6 pm at Wooden Legs and provide staff with the topic.
C. Liaisons Reports
1) Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (Boersma & Garcia Fritz)
2) Public Arts Commission (Brink) – Meeting today, discussed Comp Plan.
D. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
February 1st was the deadline for Deadwood Fund grant applications, so our staff will be
reviewing those in the coming weeks.
CLG grant applications will be coming to you soon. Chris Nelson sent an email on Jan. 30 to
all CLG contacts to start planning for the application.
The next SDSHS Board meeting will be held April 26 in Rapid City, in conjunction with the
annual history conference, April 27-28 (also in Rapid City).
The statewide CLG conference is planned for May 16-18 in Vermillion. Clay County HPC is
working on the planning now.
Just a reminder that May is Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month! It’s never too
early to start planning some fun preservation-related events for your community.
Mail today – accepting nominations State Historical Society Board. Deadline March 2.
2018 Governor’s Award for History due February 22.
E. Executive Committee/Staff Updates
The Thursday, March 8th meeting date has been rescheduled to Wednesday, March 14th at
5:00 p.m.
The BHPC submitted a letter of support for the South Dakota Agricultural Heritage Museum’s
Deadwood grant application
10
May Preservation Month
o One property/week “This Place Matters” campaign
F. Announcements/Correspondence/Communications/Calendar
April 26 – Green Drinks
April 27 – Historic Sites on Bikes
May – Historic Preservation Month
Apr 27-18, 2018 State Historical Society Annual Meeting, Rapid City
May 16-18, 2018 South Dakota Statewide CLG Conference, Vermillion, Donovan Rypkema Keynote
May 24, 2018 City Volunteer Appreciation Reception, 5-7 pm, McCrory Gardens
June 16-18, 2018 St. Paul’s Episcopal 100th Anniversary Event
July 18-22, 2018 NAPC Forum, Des Moines
Oct 2-3, 2018 Growing Sustainable Communities Conference, Dubuque
Nov 2018 National Trust Conference, date & location pending
Meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
Submitted by Laurie Carruthers