HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2008_08_26 179
Brookings City Council
August 26, 2008
The BYOOkings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday,August 26, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall
with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley,
Mike Bardey, Ryan Brunner,Tun Reed, and Mike McClemans. Council Member Tom Bezdichek
was absent. Ciry Manager Jeffrey Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, Ciry Clexk Shari Thornes
and Deputy City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present.
5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION
HB 12G9 0li discussion off-sale malt& off-sale SD farm wines . Jeff Weldon said there
were many changes to the alcohol laws in the 2008 Legislative Session. One of the changes that can
affect the malt beverage renewals is this new type of license. House Bill 1269 created a package off-
sale malt and South Dakota Farm winery wine license. The cost is $175.00 and the enti�e fee stays
with the ciry,as opposed to the off-sale malt license which costs $150 and half goes to the state.
This license would allow a business to sell off-sale any type of malt bevexage and also sell SD farm
winery wines at their place of business. This license would not allow any other types of wine to be
sold off-sale. Some of the current off-sale license holders may be interested in changing to this type
of license. One disadvantage to this license for licensees is that they can't have employees undeY the
age of 21 selling the alcohol. SDCL 35-4-79.1 limits the underage sellers to businesses with just a
package off-sale malt license. Weldon said the Liquor Ad Hoc Comtnittee briefly discussed this new
bill at their August 11th meeting and determined it was policy issue for the full Council.
Steve Britzman noted that this new law deals with only with off-sale"package" sales. It allows for
those who desiYe to sell SD wines to obtain a license to sell both malt and SD wines. The only legal
requirement that needs to be different is that their employees making the sale must be 21 or older.
He said no action is requixed by the city to permit these licenses. It's a new combination license that
is available.
Weldon clarified that under this law convenience stores could sell South Dakota grown wines. He
asked Britzman how it is determined that these axe SD grown wines. Britzman said the businesses
would be required to sell wine produced pursuant to chapter in state law that defines what SD wines
would be. It would be incumbent upon the seller to comply with the SD Dept of Revenue
guidelines.
Bartley noted that it could be too restrictive for some of the smalleY businesses because of the age
requirements.
HB 1126 policy discussion (on/off sale wine licenses�. Weldon said another change in the
alcohol laws from this Legislative Session was House Bill 1126. Effective July 1,2008,all former
on-sale wine licenses automatically become an on-off sale wine license. All types of wine can be
sold with this license. The State also eliminated the"restaurant"restrictions on the type of business
eligible to receive this license. The houxs also change from Noon to Midnight to 7:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m. The clerks and wait staff will still have to be 21 years of age to sell. The Liquor Ad Hoc
Committee also discussed this new bill at their August 11`h meeting and determined it was policy
issue for the full Council.
Britzman said this law provides changes and updates in five different state statutes.The major
changes would be hours of sale have been extended,restaurant restrictions removed, and off-sale
can be sold. The City's ordinance for Sunday Sales would require revisions pex this new law.
Baxdey felt the city ordinances should be amended to reflect the changes in the state Iaw.
Britzman has already dYafted proposed amendments to the Sunday Sales ordinance. He noted that
the Council should also look at otheY amendments that provide clarification for temporary sales or
licensing.
The Council requested a teview of the proposed ordinance at a work session priox to action.
Retirement Benefits Re�ort Rita Thompson, City Finance Mana.ger,xeviewed the
"Postretirement Employee Benefits Study"with the Council. Thompson said under Government
Accounting Standards all government units must recognize this liability. However,the entities a.re
not mandated to fund the liability. If the OPEB liability is not funded it will continue to grow. She
18U
noted that theYe are other laws and unions involved. Post retirement benefits, even if paid 100%by
the employee, could impact the City's insurance Yates. The Hospital's liability is much less because
their employees don't receive postretirement benefits. The current liability is $234,000. She said
there is no reason to move quickly on this. The issue is that these funds can't be set aside in a fund
or reserve. New accounting rules require it be set up like the SD retirement funds. She suggested
the SD Municipal League may assist in setting up and managing the fund.
Weldon asked Thompson to explain the difference between recognizing it as a liability and funding
it. Thompson said funding it would provide an asset to offset the liability. It will have to be paid
some day. Can it be recognized as funded if on a pay-as-you-go plan? No, that's what the city does
now. She noted that the City's liability is very small compared to some states and larger cities. She
said it's not fair to pass on this debt to other generations without them knowing about it.
Thompson clarified that thete are three different policies: general,utilities, and hospital and all have
different benefits with different negotiating units. City general is hirer due to the fact that public
safety employees can retire at 45 and then they're on the city's posttetixement policy for 20 years
before Medicare. The Sta.te Depaxttnent of Legislative Audit has provided training on how to set up
the fund.
Thompson said the governmental body is responsible fox the net costs in the long run. At age 55,
an employee can retire and stay on the city's policy paying 50% of the policy until age 65 and then
go on Medicare. The age is 45 for public safety employees. She noted that the City doesn't always
pay the highest salaries and potential employees look at the City's benefits when considering taking a
job. The postretirement benefits are a Yecnuting tool. She commented that the Council will have to
take into consideration that if they take away this benefits how many of the City's trained and
qualified employees will retire out before make the change. To hire and certify all new employees
would be very expensive.
Council Member Reed said he was glad that the City was looking at this issue and as a City,we need
to set the sta.ndard for everyone else. He noted that too many reti�ement plans have been xobbed.
Brookings needs to get these benefits reflected on the balance sheet as a liability. There's not a need
to jump in and fund it right away,but the Council will need to take a serious look at this issue. It's a
promise that's been made to employees and he doesn't want to leave future councils to worry about
it.
City of Brookings�uarterly Financiai Re�orts Ciry of Brookings personnel presented their
Quarterly Financial Reports and responded to questions.
Brookings Munici�al Utilities Financial Re�orts Brookings Municipal Utilities personnel
presented their Quarterly Financial Repoxts and xesponded to questions. A copy of the presentation
is on file with the Ciry Clerk.
(I'horne.r left the meeting at 6:OO�im and Fo.rter arrived to clerk the meetin�.
6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley to add to the agenda Item
#SA,a special announcement by the City Manager. Agenda was approved as amended,which
included:
A. Action to approve the agenda, as amended.
B. Action to approve the July 22,2008 City Council minutes.
C. Action to approve the City/County E911 Budget.
D. Action to appoint Orv Smidt to the Brookings Regional Airport Board; term
expiring May 1,2013.
On the motion, all present voted yes;motion carried.
ADDED 5A. Stiecial Announcement by the City Manager Weldon reported that Edgebrook
Golf Course was recendy named in the 2008-2009 addition of Golf Digest's Best Places to Play
Golf. 'The City received a certificate and a congratulatory letter from their chairman& Editor in
Chief,Mr.Jerry Tard. Golf Digest,a pxemier magazine for golf enthusiasts,xates nearly 6,000 golf
courses in North America and the Islands. The courses were evaluated on a 5-point scale by
approxitnately 20,000 Golf Digest readers.
First Reading—Ordinance No. 33-08: 2009 Budget A first reading was held on Ordinance No.
33-08,an Ordinance appropriating Monies to Fund the necessary expenditures and liabilities of the
City of Bzookings fox the 2009 Fiscal Year and providing for the annual tax levy and annual tax for
all funds. Public Hearing: Septembex 9,2008.
181
First Readin : Ordinance No. 32-08: Animal Control Amendment. A first reading was held
on Ordinance No. 32-08,an Ordinance Amending Chapter 14 of the Ordinances of the City of
Brookings and pertaining to the Regulation of Animals in the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Public Hearing: September 9, 2008.
First Reading—Ordinance No. 34-08: Rezoning_ A first xeading was held on Ordinance No.
34-08, an Ordinance rezoning Lots 3, 4, and 5,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 2,Telkamp Addition from
a Residence R-3 District to a Planned Development District and for appxoval of an initial and final
development plan. Public Hearing: September 9, 2008.
First Reading—Ordinance No. 35-08: Rezonin� A first xeading was held on Ordinance No.
35-08, an OYdinance xezoning Lot 101,Block 1, Fixst Addition �om a Residence R-2 District to a
Planned Development District and for approval of an uutial and final development plan. Public
Hearing: September 9, 2008.
Public Hearin —Ordinance No. 30-08: SB126. A public hearing was held on Ordinance No.
30-08, an OYdinance establishing procedure for the issuance and regulation of on-sale licenses for
full-service restauxants in the City of Brookings, South Dakota (Senate Bill 126).
A motion was made by Bardey, seconded by McClemans,to appxove Ordinance No. 30-08.
Discu.r�ion: Don McCary,Attorney, �vant.r to knosv hoav zve got to avhere u�e are at no�v and get an idea of what
direction the czty intends to take. He.rtated the la.rt thing the council did u�a.c create an Ad Hoc Committee to look at
the akohol i,crues and to come back �ith recommen�lation.r to the full council about svhat,rhould be done.
McCarty po.ced three que.rtion.r to the counczl.• 1)He ha.r not.ceen any recommendations of that committee or aclion of
the counczl ba.red on the committee'.r rec•ommendations. 2)It i.r hi.r understanding that there i.c a pending Attomey
General's o�iinion request regarding SB 126 j�o.red by Brookings, and that it has been l�unan.rsvered.to far. He i.r
rvondering ivhat deci.cion wa.c made in going fonvard prior to a deczsion or opinion being is.rued by the Attorney
General. 3) At the la.rtAd Hoc Committee meetin� they were cautioned by the CityAttorney aboutgoing fonvard
ivith the City Ordinance prior to the i.csue.r being re.rolved by the Dept. of l�evenue. The Dept. of Bevenue u�a.r
cautioning cities aboutgoing forla�ard, and a.rking them to.rlo�v up on this proce.r,r and not proceed until more answer.c
weregiven.
McC'arty stated there haven't been any recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee at an open meeting�vhere the
public could be heard in relation to the recommendation to the council. There ha,r not been an an,ru�er from the
Attorney General in regard,c to the question,r j�osed by the city, specifically regarding SB 126. And,fznally, the fact
that thi.r ordinance is nosv on the agenda, hasgone through tzvo readings and is at a pu6lic meeting, de.rpite the fact
that the council and c•ommittee ha,r been cautioned by the De�it. of I�evenue and the City Attorney about taking the
exact action thatyou are doing. He recogni�es in the la.rt day or two there's been.cignificant revisions to the original
ordinance that ava.r read. Hoavever, he maintain,r all objection.r ta any ordinance pas.red by the city council that don't
mirror the provi.rion.r of SB 126 a.r pa.rsed by the legislature for all the same reason.r he's advi.red the counczl of befor�
and put in�vriting at the request of Council Member Bartley in June. He believe.r the prudent thing for thi.r counci!to
da i.r to hold o�on the passage of the ordinance altogether until the an.rwers are,brovided by the Defit. of Kevenue. If
you choose not to do that, the next be.rt thing avould be to pa.rs an ordinance that purely mirrors ivhat SB 126.ray.r,
rather than adopting any language that varies from it.
McCarty stated tbe three que.rtions he posed to the council are questions he thinksgeneral member.r of the public would
be intere,rted in having an.ru�ered and he would hope all members of the councrl avould be interested in having an,ravered
a.r 2vell. He re.rtated he doe.rn't think those thing,r have been discu.r.ced and openly answered at a�iublic meeting.
Again, he svanted to e.x�ire.r,r hi.r concern.r and ha.r tried to be forthright with the council in regard�vith hi.r concern.r.
lYleldon asleed.Brit�man if the amended ordinance,pracedurally, needs to be.rub.rtituted in from the fzrst reading.
Brit�man.rtated it avould be helpful to point out the change.r from the first reading to thi.c one, but the motion i,r to
af�sbr»ve the one that sva.c handed out at thi.r meetzng.
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: A motion was made by Baxtley, seconded by McClemans,to amend
the previous motion to accept the revised ordinance with changes as presented.
Brit�man read the changef of the ordinanc•e. The intent of the.re change.r i.c at lea.rt trvo fold. One objective tvould be
con.ristent zvith Don McCary'r comments and that i.r that it brings this ordinance beforeyou to a point u�her�it i.r
consistent in all respect.r zvith.rtate law svith the exception of the addition of.rubsection 3C. Secondly, it make,r thi.r
particular ordinance con�i.rtent u�ith the model that sva.r develaped among the Municzpal Attorneys.
18 �
Brit�man,rtarted the proce.rs among the Municipal Attorney,r rvith the initial draft and made modification.r, re.rudting
in an almort mirror image of state.rtatute zvith one exce�tion;the advertising provision. The Municipal Attorneys felt
it might be better to rely on the.rtate.rtatute for that. The adverti�ing rule would.ctill apply, but it would be.rtate
.rtatute that applie.r to the manner of advertising one of these licen.ree.r, as opposed to city ordinance...perhap.c just
�impl�zng thi.r at the local level.
Betiveen the firrt and the,recond readings, they have re.rtored the pmvisions on page three, which involve.r the pricing
procedures previou.rly in Subsection 1, noav in Sub.rections G,3A and B. Al,ro restored is the registry j�rocedure which
i.r called for in state.rtatute, and al,ro the last provision i.r.ruance, a neav full-senrice licen.re re.rtricted provision. The one
addition is on page three, .rub.rection 3C.
From the beginnin�Brit�man felt thi,r re.ctaurant licen.re procedure ava.r ivorkable. There are.rome procedural stepr
that need to be addre.r.red, and svil!be addre.cred by the Dept. of Revenue. The Dept. of Kevenue ha.rgiven.rome
guidance on adopting an ordinance under SB 126. He ha.c revieu�ed those and their ba.ric procedur�.r that thir
ordinance is consistent u�ith.
Subsection C�vas added because there has been debate and obvious uncertainty as to the impact of SB 126 on a local
option community(a community which holds its o�vn licen.re), ivhich wa.r the.rubject of the Attorney Generad'r opinion.
I�e,rtill have 90 day.r to set the license fee. Information is e.acpected to be received once tbi.r i.r filed if there'c someone
that feedr they have a trantfer that they zvant to re�iort to the city. It i.r an obligation once thi.r is pa.cred and
�ective...ave have 90 day.r to.ret the price of the license fee. There is.rome svork to do to evaluate that i.rsue bettveen
nozv and then, and is a dittle bit undetermined at thi.c point in time.
Sub.rection C c•ontem�ilates or bridge.r the gap and e.xpdain.r that the minimum fee wild be,$1/person. Anyone that is
looking at thi.r a.r a po.rrible mechanism for receiving a licen.re, thi.r a�'zrmatively state.r that even if Brooking.r i.r a local
option community, having read SB 126, 7ve.rtill viesv that,rtatute r�quiring u.r to charge at a minimum a,�1/person.
It doe.r not harm at all or run counter to,ctate statue, and it doe.rn't harm our ordinance to add that and make that
clear. This is hi.r under,rtanding of the latv, and thinks mo.rt zvould agree urith him that a minimum fee of,$1/�ierson
svould apply to a re.rtaurant licen.re under SB 126.
Munsterman.raid he recently met u�ith the Attorney General and Arne Broum. They agreed it would�irobably be in
the be.rt interest to.ruspend the Attorney General's opinion at thi.c time and get the ordinance into place. W/ith the
timetable for the Attorney General's O�ice to r�.rpond to the reque.rt, and:vith the di.rcufsion they had, thi.r i.r u�hat
they came to in term.r of a conclu.rion. Mun.rterman rvould like to see the council move ahead on thi.r ordinance and in
tbe timetable that Brit�nan ha.c recommended. Brittiman has pretty much mirrored this ordinance after tho.re
requirement.r and aj�preciates him doing so. Mun.rterman.rtated he u�a.rn't originally certain all of thi.r wa.r really
required, but after meeting svith the Attorney General, he i.r now convinced that it i.r and feel.r confident�ve can move
ahead. The declaratory judgment that is out there nou�svill be re.rolved by October. Thi,r�rill an.ru�er.rome que.rtion.c
for the Dept. of l�evenue a.r they begin to try to think thmugh this whole proce.rs. From our j�er.rpective sve need to just
go ahead and move ahead.
Brunner a.rked if the fee aa�ill be set with a separate ordinance. The fee 2vill be.cet by re.rolution and lvould require only
one meeting to a�i��nve that. The ej�fective date of this ordinance would trigger the 90 day.r in ivhich it i.r incumbent
upon us to set that fee.
Brunner clarified after the fee i.r fet if it can be challenged in court.
Bartley.rtated frnm a pmcedural standpoint, it i,r his understandfng if we pa.rs this ordinance;it is subject to a referral
20 day.r finm publication. So, if it is referred,November 7`b�vould be the soone.rt for an election. If the ordinance rvar
a�"zrmed, then November 7'�would start the 90 days: He a.rked if we u�ould then be looking at November, December,
or January before u�e would have to.tet the fee. Brit�rnan stated that is a rea,ronable inter�retation. There probably
aren't too many statute.r that set a.rtatute of limitations or a limited period of time to act, other than.rtatutes of
limitation. On occasion those are su.rpended by operation of lo.c.r, .ruch as if a person i.r physically di.rabled, they are
then given additional time to fale.ruit. Similarly, u�e rvould have a.ru.+�iended period if there rvas a referendum, becau.re
the ordinance i.r not�ective until the referendum election ha.r been canva.rsed. Brit�man believe.r the 90 days would be
pushed back if there avas a r�ferral.
Bartley.rtated if thi.r ordinance is j�a.r.red and then referred, there rvould be no action as far as the fee, because it
ivouldn't be,retyet. The only thing rvould be the ordinance itself and it�vould have no�ect on�vhatever the fee
.rtructure is through the referral proce.rs, because that would not be e.rtabli.rhed, unle.rs ilone early. BritZman re,rponded
the.rtatute contemplate.r that the ordinance ha.r to be�ective before the fee i.r set by resolution.
183
Bartley said there i�no aa�ay to an.rwer the que.rtion about the fee.r with the Dept.. of Kevenue�irior to re.colution of the
referral proce.r.r if thi.r avere to happen. Brit�man thought, informally,perhap,r one could reeeive some guidance, but he
doe.rn't think there avould be any formal procedure.
Bartley que,rtioned if it zvas.rustained in an elec•tion after a referral and zvent into the 90-day proce,rs and set the fees, is
that referable. Brit�man stated the re.rolution to e.rtaGli.rb u policy would 6e referable. A.r a question of first
impre.rsion, .Br�ttinzan ha.rn't thought about the referral of the re.rolution, understanding what the�ferendum law u�ould
be. Legislative act,c that.cet a policy, and thi.r probably.rets a long-term�tiolicy for the city, �vould probably be a
referable legislative ac•t, bec•aufe there i.r discretion involved in establi.rhing that fee. Fee.r can be viesved as
admini.rtrative, non-referable action.r. But becau.re of SB 126 and the permanency of that license fee, Zt�s pofftby
referable. Brit�man vie�ur it a.r a poli�determination in part. The counter argument to that�vould 6e becau.re the
,ctate statute has outlined the proc•edure for computing zvhat the licen.ce fee.rhould be, that it is merely an administrative
act to c•onzpute that fee, arad therefore not referable. Brittiman stated more analysi.t tvould be required before i.r.cuing a
fznal opinion.
Bardley.rtated if it ivere referable, and the fee�vas.ret in January or February, sve are looking at an April election
before we would take that r ferral to a vote. If it pa.c.red at that point, then we stild are notgoing to i.r.rue licen.re.r until
June Juy of 2009. Thi.c i,c a ivor.rt case scenario if itgoe.r tbrough that entire proce.rs. Bartley.rtated he under,rtands
Mr.McCarty'.r c•oncern.c that this feems nr.rhed. Hozvever, no matter 2vhat the counczl doe.r, it i.rgoing to be a long
proces.r a.r zve zvalk througb thi.r and all the po.r.ribilitie.r of what could happen down the line. He also under.rtand.c Mr.
McC'arty'c concerns tbat pos.ribly thing.r have been changed, but it is not unusual for the council to have amendment.r
betiveen the first and.cec•ond reading,r of an ordinance. The committee assigned to this directed the City Attorney to
draft thi.c ordinance and pre.rent it to the council. That action in and of it.relf svas taken by the committee. I,Y>hether
ave a.cked him to bring it bac•k to the committee for reuiesv before it zvent to the counczl for referral, the committee's
direction zva.r to the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance for counczl a�iproval, and he did so. The council apj»nved
the firrt reading and then made.rome modification.r. Tho.re probably wer�not purviesv the actual committee to review,
but again the action zvas ta direct the City Attorney to do so. He appreciates hi.r concern.c, but he doesn't think the
c•ouncil acted ina�propriately and hope.r that peo�ile svill look at it that way. Secondly, there i.r plenty of time for other
action on SB 126. There may be,rome legislative action in January to clean up.come provi.rion.r, and if it is.rucce.r.cful
and change.r the bill, he doe.rn't think there will be any emergency provision.r to put tho.re change.c into�ect. That
moves the calendar to July 1, 2009 before that become.r law. Bartley believe.r it will be Fall 2009 before the council
actually will be able to i.rsue any of the,re licen,re.r under this�ill. The proce.r.c ofgoing through all of thi.r i.r extremely
painfi.rlly.clo�v, but it i.r a fair proce.rs. He.rupports pa.r.ring thi.r ordinane•e so�ve can move fonvard, and doesn't.ree any
rea,ron to delay it at thi,r point. He believe,r everybody'.r right.r are protected.
Brunner commented there are a lot of que.rtions of c•oncern out there that al�o concern him. He i.c afraid if this proces.c
doe.rn'tget started and the next legi.rlative ses.cion begins, thing.c could get avorse instead of better. Thi.r i.rsue sva,r pretty
clo.ce in January/ February of 2008, .ro if�ve don'tget the�iroce.r.r ttarted, and this keep.cgetting pu.rhed baek, uie
could get into that next legi.clative se,r.rion zvhere things could be changed even more for the better or for the worce, or not
at all. Sometimes the legislature handle.r i.rsues and they get le,rs clear. IY>e have to start doum this path, and then the
Dept. of Kevenue and the Attorney General'r O�ce u�ill have to look at it before they would is.rue u.c a licen.re. WIe
have to get an ordinance in place to start the 90 days;90 days from no�v i.r November 26. If we svait any longer, it
�vill be December and the.rtart of the next legi.rlative.res�ion, at svhich time the Dept. of Kevenue and the Attorney
General'r O�ic•e are both bu.ry�ith their ouin is.rue,r. Fall i.r a good time for them to zvork on this i.r.rue.
Wlhaley repeated one of Mr.McCarty's concern,r of the communication betzveen the Ad Hoc Committee and the
Council. She.rtated the council received the papenvork and had.rome discu.rsion. A.r far a.r the ordinance that came
out, before thi.c revi.rion, .rhe too :va.r concerned about it and talked to a couple repre.rentatives and a.rked for their
thought.r. With the revised version of thi.r ordinance, she feel.r a lot more comfortabde mouing fonvard. Whaley.rtated
Brooking.r i.r the guineapig, and if anything is zvrong or right, someone i.rgoing to let u.c know either way. She.ree.r
this as a rvay to get the ball rolling.
On the main motion as amended, alI present voted yes;motion carried.
Public Hearing—Ordinance No. 31-08: Sidewalk Code. A public hearing was held on
Ordinance No. 31-08, an Ordinance amending Article V of Chapter 74 of the Code of Ordinances
of the Ciry of Brookings and pertaining to Sidewalk Specifications. A motion was made by Brunner,
seconded by Reed, to approve Ordinance No. 31-08. Di.rcussion: Wleldon.ctated thi.r item rein.rtate.r
language in the.ruGdirri.rion regulation.r pertaining to the construction of.ridezvalk.r in nezv.rubdivi.rion.r. It�va.r omitted
in the revision.r of the Sidesvalk Regulations in 2003, and wants it rein,ctated. At the same time, .rtaff would like to
.rtrengthen.come of the requirements regarding the time period by zvhich the adjoining sideivalk.r on the side streets u�ould
have to 6e installed;moving that up to a 2year time frame. Part of the problem urith thi.r is developments that
partially oceur, and housing con.ctr�rctiongenerally take.c.rome time after that, and in the meantime there ar�gaps in
.ridesvalk.r in neighGoring block,.s. It'r not a.rafe thing for our pedestrian plan or for the.rubdiuision.r. The other
18 �
provision, if there are some additional czrcum.rtances, or unique conditfon.r that ari.re, according to.rtate la�v they cozrld
in.rtall them on a timeline.rooner than that, if the council.ro de.rires: All present voted yes;motion carried.
Resolution No. 76-08. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to approve Resolution
No. 76-08,authorizing Change OYder#5 (CCO#5) for 2008-03STI,Downtown Streetscape Project.
Di.rcus�ion: W>eldon clarified that this i.r an amendment to a cbange order approved at the last city council meeting. It
covers the cost and the.rchedule for removing the last part of the steam tunnel. The council aj�proved at the la.rt council
meeting a change order in the amount of�'99{linear foot to remove the top of the steam tunnel for the duration of the
project. The contract had a.rked for an additional 15 calendar days to get that zvork done. At that time.rtaff
recommended aj�proving the contract amount to do the work, but�vas uncomforta6le zvith the 15 days thinking that it
ivouldn't take that long. Staj�f zvould prefer to do u�hat has been ty�iically done in the�iast, which is to make an
adju.rtment to the construction calendar at the end of the project, .ro ave Tvould actually knoav hozv muc•h time the
contractor needs to do the u�ork. De.pite our be.ct�ort.r to try to get the contractor to do that, he has refused to.rign
the change order zvithout the 15 additional days. I�ather than arguing about that is.rue, aa�e decided it ivould be best to
authoritie the 1S days, which zvould extend the contractperiod from October 15 to October 31, u�hich zvould be the
new deadline forproject completion. i�eldon a.rked the council to authori�e adding 15 day.c onto the contrac•t. Failure
to do so rvould mean that the c•ontrac•tor zvill not proceed to remove the balance of,cteam tunnel. Weldon stre.r.ced the
steam tunnel ha.r to absolutely be out of the project so�ve can preserve the integrity of the new.rtreet. Brunner asked for
a verifzcation of the completion timeline, a.c there are concern.r u�hether or not the project ivill be completed on time.
Weldon.rhared that city,rtaff ha.r received a number of cald.r/inquirie.r about the c•on.rtruction.cchedule and the.rcope of
the project. Specifically they have related to�vhether or not it�vould be advisable to even open up the third block to do
the aa�ork. The original project.cchedule comj�letion date ava.r October 1 S, and no�v it avill be October 31. Ourgoal
remain.c to have all utility work done, .�treet surface svork done, and.ridelvalk.r done by the end of the sea.ton. There
zvill likely be some punch list item.r that iuillgo beyond that rlate, but nothing that urill impede the activity level for
doumtown...depending on the rveather. In the contract is a contrac•t for penalty of,�'1,400/day for every day this
projectgoe.c beyond final comj�letion. If thi.r amendment i.r approved, it zvill mean that any day that the total project
does notget done after October 31, there is a�'1,400/day penalty. That i.r.rtandard procedure in contract.r and
provide.c an incentive for the contractor to keep the projec•t moving. The third block i.r e.x�ected to begin soon. We are
looking at paving the first block to o�ien it for tra�c. Some parking rpot.r on the side.r of the.ctreet.r may have to be
blocked o�for contractorr to svork behind the curb for in.ctallation of.rtreetscape furniture,planting.r, neu�.rtreet lights,
etc. Weldon.rtated there i.r plenty of fall con.rtruction aveather left and zve are going to keep thi.r projectgoing. All
present voted yes;motion carried.
Resolution No.76-08
A Resolurion Authorizing Change Order#5(CCO#5)For
2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project
Winter Brothers Undergxound,Inc.,Sioux Falls,South Dakota
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-03SSI,
Downtown Stxeetscape Pxoject: Construction Change Order Number 5:Adjust estimated the bid
contract for the additional work of xemoving the steam tunnel and all asbestos contauung material to
an estimated depth of 2.5 to 3.5 feet below the final road grade. The contractor will not be charged
tipping fee. This work is on Main Avenue between 5�'Street and the south end of the pioject,or
steam line,which ever comes first. The removal work will be measured and paid for at a cost of$99
per lineal foot for an estimated length of 1000 feet for a total change order incxease to the contract of
$99,000. Extend the contract date by 15 calendar days for the preceding work. This resolution
amends Resolution No. 74-08,passed and approved on the 26��'day of.�ugust 2008.
Resolution No. 66-08. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Brunner, to approve Resolution
No. 66-08,Creation of Tax Increment District#4 and the designation of boundaries of said district.
Disc�r.r.rion: I�eldon clarified thi.r.rets in place the development plan for the Tax Increment District, �vhich includes 33
residentially�oned lot.c in the SielerAddition.McCleman.r stre.r.red the need to develop policy for Tax Increment
District.c and i.c concerned that there isn't one already in place. Weldon.rtated he aa�a.r set to start uriting the policy and
thi.r T7D came on pr�tty fast. Kather than hold u�the con.rtruction pro�Ject on thi.r one, rve are going forth. In previous
eommunication, the councrd had a.rked to consider a moratorium on future Tax Increment Project.r, at least for tho.re
that svere.rimilar to thi.r. Bettveen the tsvo project.r out there, the city i.rgetting close to meeting the demand uath.rsepply
as identified in the housing plan. Thi.r podicy is on i�eldon s li.rt of things to do and he u�ill certainly ho�ie to have
before the council a comprehen�ive policy about Tax Increment District.r before creating any more.All present voted
yes;motion carried.
Resolurion No.66-08
Resoludon Providing For The Crearion And Designarion Of
Tax Increment District Numbet Four City Of Brookings,Md Defining Its Boundaries
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended the creation of Tax Incremental District
Numbet Four.
WHEREAS,the City of Brookings has the power,pursuant to SDCL§11-9-2(1),to create the Tax
Increment District Number Four,Ciry of Brookings and defizie its boundaries.
THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
185
1. l�uthorizauon. The City hereby finds that twenty-five percent(25%) and more of the xeal
propexty located within the boundaries of the proposed Tax Incxement District Fo�,City of
Brookings,is a blighted axea under SDCL� 11-9-10(2),(4),(8)and 11-9-11. Further,the City
finds that the improvement of the axea is likely to enhance significantly the value of substantially
all of the other real propert��in the District. The City also uses the powets granted puxsuant to
SDCL�9-54 for the economic development of the Tax Incremental District Numbex Four,City
of Brookings.
2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Not less than 25%of the propetty in the District is a blighted asea;
b. Impxovements to the District are likely to add millions of dollars assessed valuation to the
district and will significantly and substantially enhance the value of all property in the district;
c. There is a reasonable likelihood that thexe will be affordable housing built in the District by
Oakwood Equity Gxoup,LLC.
d. The aggxegate assessed value of the District plus the tax increment base of all other existing
districts in the City does not exceed ten percent of the total assessed valuation in the City.
e. The District is open bare land void of site improvements which impairs the sound growth of
the City.
£ The District lacks watex connections which substantially impaixs the sound growth of the
District.
g. The District lacks sewexage connections or treatment which substantially arrests the sound
growth of the District.
h. The District lacks stxeets,roads and fire protection which retards housing accommodations
and constitutes a economic liability and is a menace to the public welfare in its present
condition.
i. As demonstrated by many group meetings discussing affordable housing and sufficient
housing stock, thexe is substantial need for affordable housing and that the property in its
open condition and with its obsolete plating irnpairs and arrests the sound growth of the
city.
j. The District constitutes a blighted aiea as defined in SDCL Chapter 11-9.
3. Creation of District. There is hereby created,pursuant to SDCL Chapter 11-9 the Tax Increment
District Number Four,City of Brookings.
4. Date of Cxeation. The Tax Incxement District is hereby cxeated on August 26,2008.
5. B9undaries of District. Tax Increment District Number Four shall have boundaries which shall
included the following described real property: The east 610 feet of the west 1,110 feet of the
south 640 feet of the north 1,150 feet in the SE'/<of Section 35-T110N-RSOW
BATA Funding Request. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to fund half of
BATA's additional funding request at$6,250 in 2008. The othex half will come from Brookings
Counry. Di.rc•u.rsion: lY�eldon clarifzed BATA'c request i.r for the purcha.re of fuel. Brenda Schu�eit�er ha.c secured
,rtate fund.r if it c•an be matched locally. BATA'.r budget,rhortfall e.rtimate is�'25,000, svhich puts the loc•al
requirement at,8'>2,500. Brookings County ha.r already authori�ed an a6propriation of,�'6,250. Whaley arked
aGout the `other tran.rportation'line for�'5,000 in the City Budget, and svho that wa.r slated for. Brunner re.rponded
it is for SDSU'r Safe Kaile Program. W>haleygave direction to label that budget line svith `SDSU Safe Bade'.co she
doe,cn't try to.rpend it somesvhere el.re. All present voted yes;motion carried.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to enter Executive Session
at 6:47 p.m. for consulting with legal counsel on contractual matters with the Mayor, City Council,
City Manager, Ciry Engineer,Deputy City Clerk, City Attorney,A1 Heuton,Mike Struck and Ryan
Krogman present. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to exit Executive Session at
8:14 p.m.
Resolution No. 67-08—Real Property Transfer. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by
Reed, to table Resolution No. 67-08, a Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Real Property to
Brookings Economic Development Corporation, Inc. for Economic Development Purposes. All
pxesent voted yes;motion to table carried.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed, to adjourn. All present voted yes;
motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
CITY BROOKINGS
0�9 CITyoF
�'o:����� �N�OV��P
��A,�'�`�� Sco . Munsterman,Mayor
�s°� �� '��.� ✓ (/"
� '�'hoYnes,Ciry Clerk