HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2008_04_29 69
Brookings City Council
Apri129, 2008
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday,April 29, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at Ciry Hall
with the following members pxesent: Mayox Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley,
Mike Bardey,Ryan Brunner,Tim Reed, and Tom Bezdichek. Council Member Ginger Thomson
was absent. City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attoxney Steve Britzman, City Clerk Shari Thotnes,
and Receptionist/Recoxds Cletk Laurie Carruthers were also present. Laurie Carruthexs clerked the
meeting.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
Swiftel Center Ex�ansion Plans - Swiftel Center Advisory Board.
Boaxd members Rod Schaefer,Baxb Telkamp and Deb Garbexs were present to discuss the Swiftel
Center expansion plans with the Council. Board membexs Tom Coughlin and Matthew Nelson,
were absent.
Mayor Scott Munsterman stated the Swiftel Center Expansion Plan is part of the City Council's 2008
Sttategic Planning goal list. However,it is low on the list. In regards to the expansion plan,the
council has a desire to review the independent study, as well as the VenuWorks study, and listen to
the comments from the Advisory Boaxd. The Swiftel Center's Executive Ditector,Tom Richter,
explained that the expansion plan addresses the need for additional stoxage, office, and meeting
(convention) space, which are critical to the growth and future of the Swiftel Center. Private
developexs are intexested in adding a hotel to the expansion pxoject. T'he first talk of the convention
centet was April 1997.
Boaxd member Barb Telkamp commented that the Shamrock is not the same as the Swiftel Center
expansion. This expansion would be able to accommodate large conferences which would include
break out rooms,banquets and meetings.
Council Member Bezdichek suggested if the hotel and convention centex could be constructed with
private dollars, then the ciry would not be competing with private enterprise. Richter stated many
other communities have public/private partnerships which benefit them. He suggested the council
tour these facilities for examples of these partnexships.
Council Member Reed advised the public has commented the expansion plans would make the
Swiftel Center the same as the Shamrock, and the city would be in dixect competition. Richter
replied that competition will happen. When cities move forwaxd,it stimulates the economy and
other growth for the community.
Council Member Bartley suggested the Swiftel Center Advisory Board take charge with a consulting
firm to prepare a plan of acrion while working with City Manager Weldon.
Frank Kurtenbach, Daktronics, Inc., commented cooperation with the university is needed in
planning this expansion as the university could attract many conventions to Brookings. Rob
Peterson, SDSU Athletic Department, advised there is no facility in Brookings that can currendy
accommodate the size of many of their events. If the convention center is built,the university will
be in full support.
Mayox Munstexman stated that the next step is to find someone to do an analysis. The Swiftel
Center Advisory Board will work with Weldon on the validation study.
Annual Reports from City Volunteer Boards. Committees and Commissions. In compliance
with the City's Governance and Ends Policies, each city volunteer board, co.mmission and
committee has provided its 2007 annual xepoxt of activities to the City Council for infoxmationaL '
purposes. The annual tepoxts were received itom the Airport Board,Board of Adjustment,Board
of Appeals, Board of Health,Committee for People who have Disabilities,Historic Preservation
Commission,Human Rights Committee,Libxary Board,Paxk&Recreation Boaxd,Planning
Commission, and Txaffic Safety Committee. City Manager Weldon added the Transportation Board
would provide an update at the end of summex and would also be included in the 2008 Annual
Report.
6:00 p.m. Meeting Review. City Manager Weldon responded to questions pertauung to the action
items on the agenda. Weldon noted that Item#4D from the consent agenda should be deleted.
70
The Airport Manager advised that with the potential realignment of the runway thexe may be an
opportunity to utilize this property.
City Clerk Reports. Shari Thornes, City Clerk,provided a briefing on future agenda items and
upcoming invitations and obligations.
Citv Council Topics. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to add on a future work
session the review of LEED certification for municipal owned construction of city owned buildings.
All present voted yes,motion carried.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: Munsterman made the following amendments to the Agenda: 1) Remove the
airport board appointment fxom the agenda;2) Reschedule the public hearing and action on
Ordinance No. 15-08 to May 13,2008;and 3) Remove Resolution No. 37-08 from the agenda.
Council Member Reed requested a change in oxder of the agenda,moving Item #12 (Shamrock
Lease) before Item #11 (BraVo's liquor). A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to
approve the consent agenda as amended.
Di.rcu.r�ion: Bartley a.rked�vhat i.r rational for moving Item 8 to the May 13, 2008 agenda. Bartley que.rtioned City
Attorney BritZman if it i.r common to move Ordinance.r after the notification ha.r been publi,rhed and�eople have come
to te.rt�. Mu.rt a valid rea.con be given� Brit�man replied that it a.r di.rcretionary for the council;it can be decided on
a case by ca.re ba.ri.c Bartley again reque.rted the rational for moving the Item to the May 13, 2008 agenda. Mayor
Mun.rterman explained that the applicant had requested the change.Munrterman a.rked if anyone had.rpoken u�ith
the applicant. City Clerk Thorne.c r�.rponded that.che.poke zvith the oumer, Dick Fergen, that morning and he.rtated
that he would be pre.rent at the council meeting to make the r�queft that Item 8 be tabled until May 13, Z008.
Bartley made a motron to leave Ordinance No. 1S-OS on the agenda and the council can make a motion to table the
Item at that timepending Fergen',r reque.rt and rational. MayorMun.rterman added that thi.r amendment i.r
friendly.
A. Agenda as amended.
B. Action to approve Apri115,2008 City Council Minutes.
C. Action on various committee, commission and board volunteer appointments:
Human R.ights Committee—Joel Qay)Vargas (5/1/08-5/1/09);Park&Recreation Board—
Erik Dahl (5/1/08-5/1/13);Pa�k&Recreation Board,High School Student—Rebecca
Anderson (5/1/08-5/1 j09);Park&Recreation Board, College Student—Renae Kruetner
(5/1/08-5/1/09);Utility Board—Dave Peterson (5/1/08-5/1/13);Disability Committee—
Alan Davis (5/1/08-1/1/09)*filled unexpired term;Swiftel Center Advisory Board—Teri
Ronning(5/1/08-1/1/2011)*filled unexpired term;Traffic Safety Committee—Mike
Fossum (5/1/08— 12/31/10)*filled unexpited term.
D. Resolution No. 37-08, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of �
Brookings Declaring Certain Real Property as Surplus and Authorizing the
Sale of Such Properry. REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
On the motion, all present voted yes;motion carried.
Mayoral Proclamations:
Mayot Munstexman advised that the following Proclamations had been issued:
o April 25 Arbox Day
o May 2-3 VFW Buddy Poppy Days
2"a Reading—Ordinance No. 15-08—Conditional Use. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 15-08, an application fox a conditional use to establish a drive-in food service on Lots 12—14,
Block 6, Original Plat Addition (425/427 Main Avenue). No comments were made. Mayor
Munsterman requested a motion to table this agenda item until May 13,2008. A motion was made
by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to table Ordinance No. 15-08 until May 13,2008.
Mayor Munsterman asked if it would not be debatable for May 13,2008. Britzman replied that it
would be debatable if a specific date has been identified. Bartley requested an explanation for the
delay,other than the applicant's request. Dick Fergen,owner,was not there to advise the reasoning.
Mayor Munsterman deducted the probable reason for the request was this issue calls for a super
majoriry vote to overturn the Planning Commission vote, and not all council members were present.
Munsterman would like to afford the applicant the opportunity to a full council. Baxdey responded
that it would be difficult in the future for the council to take action on a lot of items if it needed the
71
full council to make a decision. Bardey advised that it would be a bad precedence to begin such a
practice of not voting on items unless the entire council was pxesent.
ACTION: On the motion,Brunnex, Munsterxnan,Reed voted yes; Bezdichek,Whaley and Baxdey
voted no;motion to table failed.
A motion was made by Bardey and seconded by Reed to approve Oxdinance No. 15-08.
Discussion: Bardey continued that the council has been presented with all kinds of data, pros and
cons of the request. Findings of fact have been received from the Planning Commission,Traffic
Safety Coinnuttee,Downtown Brookings, Inc. and the Brookings Historic Pxeservation
Commission, all of which deny this request;it is impoxtant that the council takes this advice. Bartley
advised he will be voting against the request.
Bezdichek spoke regarding the council's reliance on the volunteer boards who dedicate much time
and effort in oxder to advise the council. Council members must also consider the best use of a
propexty in paxticular districts. Bezdichek does not believe that a council member would not
support a business. However, the council must also consider safety and what is best for the
downtown axea. Bezdichek believes that it is not in the best interest of the downtown axea to have a
drive-thru, and he will also vote against this item.
Reed added that the council wants businesses to do what they can and help the downtown area
grow. The council takes input from the boaxds,but it is for the council to decide the facts. Reed is
concerned with the businesses that have left Main Avenue and the empty spots remauung along
Main. There has not been quick infill. Sometimes the communiry will have a few pains when it tries
to do something different. Otherwise,lots will sit empty. Reed critically reviewed the safety issues
and looked at the business and land himsel£ It is not the best situation,but it is also not the worst
situation. He walked through looking at the sight lines. There are no sight lines on alleys which is a
major concern. The drive-in will not be as bad as an alley; thexe are further sight lines. Aftex
balancing all the issues,Reed believes the council should move forwaxd in order to give
opportunities to businesses downtown.
Whaley went through the alley several times to view the safety concerns. Trucks use the alleys for
deliveries. She also has concerns with backed up traffic on Fifth Street. If this ordinance is granted,
more drive-thrus will open on Main Avenue with current or future vacant lots. Whaley will be
voting against this ordinance. With the children's museum and streetscape,Mr. Fergen can increase
his business by beautifying the vacant lot next to his building.
Brunner commented that his views are more in line with Reed's regarding clrive-thru food service.
In viewing the plan, there are things that can be done to work with safety issues. Nick's will have
just as much stackmg of traffic as Taco John's or Arby's. Brunner will be voting in favor of this
ordinance.
Bardey spoke about the xecent alley encxoachment issue with the city,and stated this is an
encroachxnent on an alley to be used for a private business. The council needs to recognize the fact
that caxs are going to be stacked in the alley. He sees this as one of many xeasons why this
ordinance should not pass.
Munsterman advised he would be in favor of the ordinance. He sees no compelling evidence to
deny the request to develop the property. There is a lot of pexception about what it is going to be
like. Thexe have been many drive-ins along Main Avenue. Munsterman is glad the oYdinance is in
place, but the council needs to be willing to allow businesses to be creative.
Batdey replied there have been many drive-ins along Main Avenue,but they have gone away for a
teason; they did not work.
Bezdichek reminded the public that the Ciry Manager has recommended an opposition to the
conditional use request based upon the recommendations of the advisory boards.
Munsterman ended by commenting that he is disappointed that the council did not allow Fergen's
request to table this until May 13,2008 so he could speak about the project.
ACTION: On the motion,Bxunner,Munsterman,Reed voted yes;Bezdichek,Whaley and Bartley
voted no;motion failed.
72
2"a Reading—Ordinance No. 16-08—Conditional Use. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 16-08, an application for an amendment to a conditional use to establish four (4) additional
dwelling units in an apartment on a portion of Lot 18, and Lot 19, except the W85 feet of Lot 19,
College Addition (649 Faculty Drive). No public comments were made. A motion was made by
Brunner, seconded by Bardey, to approve Ordinance No. 16-08.
Discussion: Whaley voiced concern regarding the parking spaces. Planning and Zoning
Administrator Dan Hanson responded that the application fox the conditional use was for a land use
change, so the applicants must comply with parking requirements or apply to the Board of
Adjustment.
ACTION: All present voted yes;motion carried.
2"a Reading—Ordinance No. 17-08—Sign Ordinance. A public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 17-D8,amendments to the sign ordinance pertaining to electronic message signs. City Manager
Weldon restated the Oxdinance and advised that this ordinance was a compromise between the
Planning Commission,Downtown Brookings, Inc. and the Historic Preservation Commission.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Dan Hanson advised that the main concerns from the Histoxic
Preservation Commission was the signs did not fit into the historic districts. Upon xeviewing the
four districts in the city,it was pointed out a portion of the Central business district is not in the
historic distxict. This portion would be able to have electronic message signs. In the historic
district, electronic message signs would be prohibited for institutional uses in the residential zones,
but also fox any commercial enterprise in the historic downtown.
Jim Morgan,President of Daktronics,Inc.,questioned if schools were exempt from this ordinance.
Hanson clarified that schools are exempt in historic districts and within 150 feet from the historic
district. Morgan advised Daktronics'position was that there is a place for electronic displays and
there is a place to not have electronic displays.
Tom Bozied asked if the historic district includes 6`h Street west of Medary Avenue. Hanson
responded that fot institutional uses, an electronic display sign would be prohibited within 150 feet
from this area. Bozied questioned if this area was commercialized,would an electronic message sign
be permitted. Hanson confirmed that would be permitted.
Morgan asked if an electronic message sign would be permitted at the future children's museum; and
if it would be an institutional use. Hanson advised that it would not be categorized as an
institutional use. The children's museutn is in a residential district, so there would be significant
restrictions. Morgan asked if there were any exceptions to this ordinance. Hanson replied that
zoning ordinances are never static; they are always dynamic and certainly can be modified and
changed. This ordinance was appropriate given the information that has been reviewed. As
electxonic message signs evolve, so will the oxdinances.
Garner Hanson questioned if light emitting diode (LED) signs would be prohibited in a downtown
business window. Dan Hanson responded that electronic message signs are categorized by different
characteristics. If the sign fits within a certain category,it will either be pernutted or not. If the sign
can be seen by the motoring public and has motion,it would not be permitted.
Hearing closed.
A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Bardey, to approve Ordinance No. 16-08.
Discussion: Reed commented that this is a good corripromise,and we will have to continue working
with these issues in the future as technology advances. Weldon questioned if size dimensions were
built into this ordinance. Hanson confirmed that a maximum limit is addressed in the ordinance.
All present voted yes;motion carried.
Lease Agteement—the Shamrock. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to enter
into a lease agreement with the Shamrock as a convention facility.
Discussion: City Attorney Britzman said the hutdle that we needed to cleax was to detetmine what
procedure would be appropriate to establish it as a convention facility that was satisfactory with the
state and their interpreta,tion. The lease agreement has been reviewed by the Secretary of Revenue,
who is in charge of the regulation of alcoholic beverages in the state. The Secretary has detexmined
that a lease agreement would be sufficient to establish, even though it is a privately owned business,
to establish it(the Shamtock) as a public facility. The parties to this lease would be the private
73
owner, the Shamrock,would lease the facility (to the city) for the purpose of establishing the public
convention facility. The lease that has been drafted contemplates that the Shatnrock would maintain
or continue all obligations of operating the facility. The city would be a paxty for the purposes of
identifying this as a convention facility. The lease duration is rather limited, because this is intended
to be a temporary measure extending until we have the ability to issue the new restaurant alcoholic
beverage on-sale licenses. It is possibly a four to five month time period depending on when the
process is completed. Pursuant to the lease, the city would lay the groundwork for this to be
identified foY that limited time period as a public convention hall to satisfy the state's interpretation
of the legal requirement.
Munsterman reiterated that this is a temporary case-by-case basis which essentially builds a bridge
foY the limited time period. Munsterman questioned if Britzman is certain that the Shamrock
qualifies under the new restaurant law.
Britzman replied that Senate Bill 126 (SB126) is an entirely separate issue. He has done further
study in the last couple of weeks on SB 126. He said if the Shamrock has restaurant facilities (which
we know that they do), a printed menu, services through wait staff to serve the meal, a kitchen to
cook the meals, a dining room facility in which to consume the meals and serve the public, those are
the basic requirements for a facility to qualify under SB126. SB126 does not go much beyond that
and has covered the points that are required. They have to meet other xequirements that are non-
facility based in terms of the no smoking requixement, but beyond that it's about the sum and
substance of the requirements. Britzman said he would assume that theit facility would qualify. The
facility itself, for the purposes of serving the alcoholic beverages,would be confined to the dining
room area where the food is consumed. That may be a somewhat more limited area than thei�
entire premises. That's probably still yet to be determined,but from he sees,we know that they
would probably meet all the items that he's mentioned tonight.
Munsterman asked Mr. Bailey from the Shamrock if he wanted to comment and if he was
comfortable with this aYrangement.
Mike Bailey Sr.,co-owner of the Shamrock, thanked the Council and said a lot of things have
happened in the last two weeks. He said it appears to him that we're back where we were in
February when the council reopened the applications for the lone remaining liquor license. It
appears,based on the information that they've heard, there's no guarantee that the restaurant
licenses are going to be available in Brookings in July. And based on a preliminary review by their
lawyer of the restauxant license, there is a defuute question maxk as to whether their facility (the
Shamrock)will qualify as a full service restaurant under SB126,noting that SB126 has its own
definition of full-service testaurant. He said it appears also that the event license, this motion,is
going to be challenged. So there's some question when it comes to July,whether or not they'll have
anything. Back to January and I'ebruary, there was one license and four applications and one
applicant withdrew. SB 126 was not considexed at that time. Theit feeling is that the decision for the
sole remaining license should have been made at that point. The Shamrock has met or exceeded all
the city requirements that were set forth when the license application process was reopened. He
said they feel the last license should be awarded to the Shamrock or at the very least,table things for
everyone until these new restaurant licenses axe soYted out.
Munsterman commented that has been mentioned before. Munsterman asked if Bailey had
conversations with our Ciry Attorney regaxding their feelings and what they had leaxned.
Bailey xesponded that no,they had not conversed with Britzman Yegaxding what he had currently
stated. He did call the city attorney asking if there was anything they should do. They did receive a
ptelimuiary draft of the lease agreement some time ago by email. Britzman told him there would be
some revisions but they hadn't seen a second version. Britzman had advised him that there may be
some revisions after it had been citculated through the city but was uncertain if that was the Council
or other ciry offices. Howevex, he didn't receive a final agreement so they don't have a final opinion
on the document.
Munsterman asked Mr. Bailey if he was understanding coxxectly, and asked be corrected if wrong,
that he's really not in favor of what this motion is to enter into a lease agreement. Is that correct?
Bailey said that was correct. He said right now there are so many uncertainties involved; there's a
50/50 chance or moxe that there won't be a license available and we can't affoxd to continue this
way and take that chance and find out that thexe is none available at all. He doesn't know about
74
both the other applicants, but right now one applicant is definitely a xestaurant by the SB 126
definition and doesn't know about the other one.
Weldon clarified the reference to circulating the draft lease agreement. He said the city needed to
perfotm internal checking xegarding insurance ptovisions in the agreement. That's all it was about.
Bailey said he had no problem it being circulated,but incorporating those comments or noting that
there were not changes to the first draft was not provided to him.
Weldon asked the City Attorney if the draft agreement in the packet was the final draft agreement
and if that was the final draft that Mr. Bailey had.
Weldon directed a comment to Mr. Bailey saying if his legal counsel was telling him that the
Shamrock doesn't qualify for SB126,then that eliminates a lot of discussion in the futuxe about
whethex or not their facility meets the state's criteria.
Bailey responded that they would probably be a guinea pig for the law.
Britzman responded that there was one additional provision to the agreement with respect to
property insurance,but said that is not very significant because the Shamrock would carry its own
properry insurance for their faciliry.
Bailey concluded by respectfully requesting that they continue apply for the original,last remaining
liquor license the way it started out. Munsterman clarified he wants the ciry to withdraw this motion
that's on the table now. Bailey said yes.
ACTION: Motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Reed, to table the Lease Agreement with the
Shamrock. All present voted yes;motion carxied.
Resolution No. 29-08—Liquor O�erating Agreement: BraVo's Resolution No. 29-08,a
resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a liquor operating agreement with BraVo's on a
temporary basis until the new restaurant licenses are issued was tabled on April 11,2008. A motion
was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to remove Resolution No. 29-08 from the table. No
comments were made. All present voted no with the exception of Bardey;motion to remove
Resolution No. 29-08 from the table FAILED.
Munsterman commented that we need to get mote answers in regards to what the law is really going
to provide and we probably will need direct conversations with the Department of Revenue on what
they will approve. Munsterman said he is sensing that the Council is not sure that they want to step
into this territory. He said we're trying to build bridges,but we need to make sure we build a bridge
to something that is going to be viable and he thinks there are enough questions in our minds, that
we'xe not sure that we're"there."
Britzman suggested moving to the next step of circulating the research that he's done. He said he
was surprised that we haven't seen anything from the Municipal League or others who are working
on the same topic statewide. But,he has done additional research and has prepared a memo that he
thinks is ready to circulate among the city attorneys. He said he will work hard to obtain feedback
from other people and deal with it. Having done that xesearch,which consisted of reviewing all the
alcoholic beverage chapters and trying to connect each specific statute with this new SB126 to see if
it clarifies or if it's affected at all. He said he really thinks the number of issues out thexe is not going
to number more than a total of about ten questions that need to be xesolved. He said he can't see
that the definitions are that difficult to deal with. We've operated with less than complete picture or
complete interpretation of what the statutes have met fox quite a few years and we've done our best
to determine them. For example,Sunday sales can only occur in restaurant facilities with prepared
meals. While it's not 100% cleax exacdy what the statute has intended to include,we've be able to
work with it. He th.inks similarly under SB126,we'll be able to get a consensus and he still has
confidence in that. He appreciates that there are some questions that are not resolved and he
understands that and doesn't have all the answets at this point. But,we've got a woxking draft of
answers to those questions and we need to fortify that with some interpretations,whether we can
get it from the state as early as possible- that would be a goal, or other municipal attorneys would be
helpful.
Munsterman said in our case if we know for sure that the Shamrock qualifies;noting there's
questionable doubt now with Mr. Bailey's testimony,but if we know for sure that they qualify for a
75
zestaurant license and the Department of Revenue tells us that they are and that they will approve
them for that license, that takes quite a bit of doubt away on what our next step. He appreciates CM
Reed's changing the oxdeY on this so we can find that out first because that does make a decision foY
our next decision or two that would occux.
Bardey stated once again we've taken unsubstantiated testimony that this license is not available fox
the Shamrock. Batdey said Mr. Bailey produced no lettex fxom his attorney questioning it this
evening,just his statement that his attorney is questioning it. We have no documentation to that
effect and yet we believed it and we stopped our process again. We believed it last week when Mr.
Bailey stated that this agreement wasn't working for him, and yet we've continued to put it on our
agenda this evening and he didn't even want this agreement and we tabled this agreement. We have
a license to issue. It's an unrestricted operating agreement. We came to the conclusion after SB126
passed that we would issue that operating agreement as a Council. We didn't issue it. We got into
this argument about SB126;it's a separate issue. SB126 is an absolutely separate issue. We've got a
lot of things to work through there,but it doesn't stop the issuance of this license this evening and
we just killed it one rnore time based on what's going to happen with SB126. It really doesn't mattex
what happens with SB126 as it relates to this issue. He asked Britzman if he's completely wrong on
this issue, to please tell him. We were going to issue an operating agreement temporarily and take it
back and that issue was xesolved. If the Baileys'aren't interested in a license under SB126, then let's
have a vote,up or down,of whether the license goes to the thxee remaining candidates: Gonz
Productions, BraVo's or the Shamrock, because apparendy all three of them want that license.
BxaVo's is the only one that has agreed to give it back and take a restaurant operating agreement.
Gonz Productions says no, they want to keep that license as an untestricted operating agreement.
The Shamrock is telling us that they don't think they qualify. He said let's have that debate and
move forward;it has nothing to do with SB126 at this point and he's disappointed that once again
not taking action.
Brunner asked,looking at SB126,whether or not cities can allocate the new restaurant licenses if
they have othex unrestricted licenses available. Also,how does that play into issuing a temporary
license and taking it back,because then we would then have one of those licenses available which
would mean we wouldn't be able to issue one of the restricted xestaurant licenses?
Britzman replied that this issue must be looked at fxom a local option perspective which means
while we have an operating agreernent available,we should be able to issue restaurant licenses undex
this new legislation without regard to whethet or not we have a different cla.ss or different type of
operating agreement available. That would be his feeling. He cautioned that the Council should
confine any further comments to the ditection on SB126. He feels the new SB126 on-sale
restaurant licenses are an entirely different category than oux xemaining operating agreement. He
sees them as being an additional new class of license and the fact that we have an operating
agreement would not limit us from issuing an on-sale restaurant license under SB126. Even though
we still have it and may not choose to issue that operating agreement,because they are different.
The SB 126 rules that take into consideration whethex or not you have licenses available would not
relate to an operating agreement. That's the language and interpretation that he has xeading the law.
Munsterman commented that one thing Britzman has mentioned last time was the thought that
SB126 refeYred to selling. In our case,we would be able to lease those restaurant licenses through
an operating agreement like we do now or is this a sale that has to occur because of this new
restaurant type license?
Britzman said it's the actual issuance of a license as he reads it and that was one of the issues he tried
to research in the last couple weeks. He doesn't see it as subject to an operating agreement, so it
would not be in the same category as oux operating agreements. This new legislation is another
layering of pxocedure. Even though it fits within the same chapter of the code, he sees it as an
entirely different type of license just like a retail malt beverage. We look at a retail malt beverage
license and that would not at all be the same as our operating agreements because just the nature of
those two are defined differently in the statute. There's enough to distinguish this new SB126
restautant license from the operating agreement in the statutes, that he thinks they're entirely
different and we wouldn't be issuing these licenses and we'd be required if we authorize them and
we collect a fee, that we would not be running that license or controlling them pursuant to an
operating agreement because we would not hold that license under SB126 unlike our current
structure. The statute contemplates issuing that license to another party and we do not issue our
licenses to another party undex oux current operating agxeements. We mexely authorize a manager
to use that license fox us and to operate it under our rules and we certainly could be operating those
76
licenses ourselves. Of course, that'd be contrary to what's been done for decades and decades,but
he thinks there's a distinction.
Munsterman noted that he heard Britzman say that last time,that was pxobably whexe we might land
and knows we'll pxobably have more discussion on it,but it does xaise questions.
Bardey interjected,requesting to rise to a point of order that we're discussing SB126 and it's not on
the agenda for the meeting£or discussion and that should be held a work session. The Council was
talking about issuing a license. The discussion ended on that and that SB126 is not up for discussion
this evening and it's not on the agenda.
Munsterman said it all wraps around the same thing. Britzman said it does,but his intent was to
limit his comments and pxobably extended beyond where he should have.
Mayor Munsterman said what the Council will do is put SB126 on the work session for the
May 13�'meeting. Brunner noted that it's already listed for that meeting. Munsterman said the
Council will have a full discussion and go from there.
Reed said heading into tonight, he thought the council was going to be able to issue two licenses.
T'hat was his goal. It's a point of frustration to where he was afraid that the council would not make
the right decision. That's what is really frustrating to him. There was the concept of having some
risk for the Shamrock for a few months and we did have BraVo's say they would give that license
back and could make a decision at that point. So he thinks too, that it's a litde bit of coming to an
agreement of the parties and see if the Shamrock would be willing to make an agreement to go for a
short period of time knowing that the other one will be coming available,if we can set that up. He
knows that in the lease it says when that one becomes available and at that time we can make
anothet evaluation to see where the best place is for it. He feels that would be a good way of
proceeding when we do bring it back up;if the Council sets a definite date ox something,because
BraVo's agreed they would give it back and at that time then we can evaluate where the best place
is. Otherwise, he thinks we should just back up. He thinks that's what is being asked,if we should
back up and give the license out—then it's given out for good and it's all over with and he doesn't
think that's the right option. He disappointed that the parties can't come together and figure out the
best way of going is.
Brunner suggested on May 13�',in addition to the restaurant liquor license process,he thinks the
Council should also discuss when we're looking at selling these licenses maybe we're better off to
privatize the entire system;it may be the way to go,to sell them. We've done operating agteements
in the past and he asked if we could get some xesearch done on whether or not that is still the best
system to use going foxward or if we're going to sell restaurant licenses,if we would open up for sale
all the licenses in town and no longer be in that business.
Britzman closed saying that we are moving forward in the research,but we probably having
concluded those agenda items need to move on.
Subsidy Polic� Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed to approve the Subsidy Policy.
Weldon provided an overview of the policy. All present voted yes;motion carried.
City of Brookings
Ends Policy 1, Financial Stability
Establishing what is to be done,for whom, at svhat co.rt, and
Executive Limitations to define unacceptable means
Financial Stability—Key Performance Area
Guideline H: Appropriation and Subsidy Policy& Guidelines
Pu ose.
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines and criteria regarding the allocation and use of
municipal subsidies within the City of Brookings. These guidelines shall be used in processing and
reviewing applications requesting municipal subsidy assistance. Protecting the financial interest is of
the City of Brookings is of the utmost importance,so it is the intent of the city to provide a
minimum amount of municipal subsidies, as well as other incentives that the City may deem
appropriate, for the shottest term requixed for the project to proceed.
77
The City Yeserves the xight to appxove or reject projects on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
established policies, specific project criteria, and demand on city services in relation to the potential
benefits to be received from a proposed project.
Meeting policy guidelines or other criteria does not guaxantee the award of tnunicipal subsidies.
Fuxthermore, the approval or denial of one project is not intended to set precedent for appxoval or
denial of anothet project.
Whenever possible,it is the City's intent to coordinate the use of municipal services with othex local
goveYning bodies and taxing jurisdictions.
O6'ec� tive ofMunicibal Sub.ridie.r.
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a
diverse economic base thYOUgh innovative thinking,strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally
responsible municipal management.
To fulfill this coinmitment, the Brookings City Council will closely examine its goals and the goals of
its ciry departments to identify outcomes that will meet the standards as outlined in the mission
statement above.
The Council also recogruzes that its support of programs and services outside the scope of its city
departments may be necessary to fulfill the connmitment and ackueve the desirable quality of life for
its citizens. As a matter of policy, the City of Brookings will consider using municipal funds to assist
in the following areas,but are not limited to, oppoxtunities in the areas of:
■ Affordable Housing
■ Arts &Cultuxe
� Youth Development
■ Diversiry
• Economic Development
■ Education&Literacy
• Environment
■ Government Stewardship
■ Health
■ Parks, Recreation& Open Spaces
■ Partnerships
■ Preservation/ History
■ Safery
■ Txansportation/Transit
The Brookings City Council nnay choose to annually allocate a specified funding amount for a
specific category,regardless of the number of applicants for that parriculax prog�ramming area.
General Guidelines for the Allocation o Munici�ad Sub.ridie.r
The City of Brookings may allocate up to four (4) percent of the annual Genexal Fund expenditures
to subsidize community needs and pxograms. The Ciry's cuxrent and projected financial health and
stabiliry will be the key deciding factor in determi,,;ng its abiliry to provide funds to outside
otganizations.
In addition, the Council will consider a number of factors as defined in the City's Funding
Application when making this decision. A key factor will be the applicant's ability to provide a
service or outcome that improves the quality of life fox the citizens of Brookings. The applicant
must also provide a "but for" analysis which demonstrates the need for public assistance. Other
factors include the applicant's ability to become self-sustaining, the duration of the funding
commitment, and operating vexses capital requests.
Municipal subsidy will not be used for pxojects that would place extraordinary demands on city
infrastructure and services.
Request for donations or subsidies from individuals,religious or political groups based out of the
City of Bxookings will not be considered.
Request for donations ox subsidies from qualified organizations outside of the funding timeline will
not be considered.
7 �
General Guideline.r for Subsidie.r
The Brookings City Council evaluates program-funding proposals on an annual basis for funding in
the following calendar year. The Ciry's fiscal year is January 1 to December 31. Proposals must be
submitted to the Ciry Clerk in accordance with the budget cycle schedule and proposal format
outlined below. Requests may only be made during this period of time. Completed applications
must be received on or before June 15`of each given year.
Following, a review by the City Manager and Finance Manager,the application shall be refetred to
the City Council for further consideration during the annual budget meetings.
Organizations applying for a donation or subsidy must submit a completed Application for.Funding
along with a detailed description of the project;a pxeliminary site plan;the amount requested;the
duration of the funding request;the public purpose of the project;verifiable funding sources and
uses;and a"but for" analysis which demonstrates the need for public assistance. Additional
documents that may be required include the organization's current expense statement and budget,
Board of Dixectors listing, current Annual Report, and all other items specified in the City of
Brooking.r Application for Funding.
Budget HearingPrnce.r.r.
Bxookings City Council budget meetings are held in the months of August and September. All
budget meetings are open to the public. Applicants may or may not be invited to make a
presentation on their funding proposal. Applicants are encouraged to attend all budget meetings to
remain informed during the process. Applicants should be prepared to answer questions based on
the application. Final action on the budget occurs at the last Council meeting in September.
Bmokin�s School District Sarb.ridie.r
Appropriation of public funds can be set aside for specific purposes which promote the City of
Bxookings mission and the local qualiry of life within the City of Brookings. Brookings Municipal
Utilities transfers funds each year to the General Fund as a means to keep city property taxes at a
low level for the citizens of Brookings. The City of Brookings may annually appropriate not less
than 13.5%up to 15%of the transfer from the Brookings Municipal Utilities to the Bxookings
School District.
Economic Develo�ment/Prnmotion.r Sub�zdie.r
A subsidy from the 3`d B Fund shall meet the xequirements of the SD State Statute 10-52-8*. Funds
will be appropriated from the 3`�B Fund to entities with the capaciry to promote and advertise the
city,its facilities,amactions,and activities. In any fiscal yeas,the City may require the
unencumbered funds be returned to the City 3`d B Fund.
Sub.rid�Agreement and Ke,�borting Ke�uir�ment.r
The City of Brookings requires all recipients of municipal funds to enter into appropriate
agreements that identify the reason for the subsidy, the public purpose served by the subsidy,
subsidy payment schedule, final the specific performance measurements to be attained,and final
reporting on outcomes. Failure to provide final reporting of funds and all other required reports will
make applicant ineligible for future subsidies.
The City has established the policy that financial, service and program performance measures be
developed and used as an impoxtant component of decision making and incorporated into
governmental budgeting. The Ciry encourages all departments to utilize performance measures. At
a minimum,performance measures should be used to report on the outputs of each program and
should be related to the objectives of each departtnent.
T"he performance measurements should:
1. Be based on program objectives that tie to the City Council's goals and pxogram mission or
purpose;
2. Measure program results or accomplishments;
3. Provide for comparisons over time;
4. Measuxe efficiency and effectiveness;
5. Be reliable,verifiable and understandable; � �
6. Be reported internally and externally;
7. Be monitored and used in decision-making processes;and
8. Be limited to a number and degree of complexity that can pxovide an efficient and •
meaningful way to assess the effectiveness and efficienry of key programs.
79
All agreements and reports shali be timely prepared and filed with the City Clerk. Failure to comply
with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the requested subsidy as well as fines,
repayment requirements,and a determination that the organization is ineligible for future municipal
subsidies for a period of years.
*Applicable State Statute: 10-52-8. Additional tax on lodgings, alcoholic beveYages,prepared food,
and admissions --Purposes -- Conformance with state sales and use tax. Notwithstanding the tax
rate limitations of�10-52-2 or 10-52-2.1,any municipality may ixnpose an additional municipal non-
ad valorem tax at the rate of one percent upon the gross xeceipts of all leases or rentals of hotel,
motel, campsites, or othex lodging accommodations within the municipaliry for periods of less than
twenty-eight consecutive days, or sales of alcoholic bevexages as defined in �35-1-1, or
establishments where the public is invited to eat, dine, or purchase and carry out prepared food for
immediate consumption, or ticket sales or admissions to places of amusement, athletic, and cultural
events, or any combination thereo£ The tax shall be levied for the purpose of land acquisition,
architectural fees, construction costs,payments for civic center, auditorium, or athletic faciliry
buildings,including the maintenance, staffing, and operarions of such faciliries and the promotion
and advextising of the city,its facilities,attractions, and activities. Such taxes shall conform in all
respects to the state sales and use tax on such items with the exception of the rate.
UUdate on retail development. Weldon stated he,A1 Heuton,Executive Directox of Brookings
Economic Development Corporation, Council Member Ginger Thomson and Jeff Weldon had a
confexence call with a consultant that works with cornmunities regarding oudet malls.'I'hey
discussed the possibility of building an outlet mall on the DOT property,which the city currendy
holds an option upon. He stated the first phase would be a site visit. The consultant would then
prepare a xepoxt which identifies potential retailers that would be a good match for the community
and the regional market. Phase two would include face-to-face work and recnutment with
developers,potential retailers, and the city. The standard fee is $9,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses.
Motion was made by Reed and seconded by Brunner, to direct the City Manager,in consultation
with the BEDC Executive Director, to proceed in hiring a consultant for the retail development,
with a limit of$15,000.
Whaley advised the city has consulted before on this issue and wondered if this was the same
information. Munsterman answered this consultant is specific to oudet malls, and the previous
consultant pxovided information about what people of Brookings spend in retail. The oudet
consultant would provide a targeted market analysis if Brookings is a good candidate for an oudet
mall. Weldon added this consultant would not be the same as the previous studies,rather anothex
tool.
Bezdichek commented he would not be in suppoxt of this motion as he does not know if the city
got its money's worth out of the Bwcton repoYt. If the city is going to spend$9,000,he would rather
have a revolving fund for downtown businesses to make cosmetic changes to their buildings after
the streetscape project is finished. He does not see the results in these studies, so he will be voting
against this motion.
Brunnex stated he is in support of this motion. He feels it is a risk,but knows if the city does not
move forward, the chances with the DOT propexty are much less. He sees this information as
beneficial for development in general.
ACTION: On the motion, all voted yes with the exception of Bezdichek who voted no;motion
carYied.
Ad�outn. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
0�0 ary�� �, "'�T
_�'' �•.�'��F . Scott . Munsterman,Mayor
�,; s.o
!n• ✓�9�
0.� �i�'
�:••• ±' /
oGly, �'P
Shari Thornes,City Clerk